Yes, you do. I suggest you and everyone else expecting something start now. For the record, I didn't listen and am not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just tired of seeing the #1 post in the Shark Pool be infighting about racism. I am not an RSP subscriber and consider Matt one of about a million minds that puts scouting stuff out. I don't consider him a god and couldn't give two sh!ts about whether or not he's a racist. This is a FFB board and there are others just like their are other podcasts. Either take Matt's explanation or move on rather than kick the crap out of each other in here.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Matt Waldman: 75% chance Bridgwater falls due to racism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PatsWillWin
- Start date
mr roboto
Footballguy
You mean the NFL GMs he said may make draft decisions from a latent racism? That group of people?
That group of people, and also, people that listen to Podcast not trying to be bombarded with a far left political agenda.
He should also apologize to the group of people he implied were racists (anyone that does heavy research for fantasy purposes, and ranks BW a lot worse than Waldman)
fatness
Footballguy
Your best bet is to avoid listening to other people. They're going to say some things you don't like, and then you'll be demanding apologies and reparations all the time.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I'm not surprised that Matt has opinions like this one. If you know his background and read his non-football links, it's pretty obvious. I don't really care about his opinions. Nor do I argue with most of them.
Having said that, it's very important to leave opinions not supported by analysis out of your work if you are supposed to be assessing and ranking the talent of NFL prospects. My grouping of draft "experts" is basically into two groups: those trying to predict the draft and those trying to assess the talent. I greatly prefer the second group and find them much more useful for fantasy football purposes. Matt has always been part of that second group. I mean, Alvin Pearman?
So if Matt was in the former group, I wouldn't be as concerned with his statement because it may be supporting a prediction that TB will be drafted as the 4th best QB. But since I place Matt in the talent assessment group, I am much more worried. Can I trust his talent evaluation of TB this year? Is he "fighting" for TB and ranking him higher than his assessed talent on film? Is he downgrading Bortles or other white QBs as part of this effort? Has he done this in other years (yes, I saw Newton as 3rd)? With other positions?
I think it's a troublesome statement for those reasons. Not because I care, or disagree, with his opinions on race and the NFL.
Having said that, it's very important to leave opinions not supported by analysis out of your work if you are supposed to be assessing and ranking the talent of NFL prospects. My grouping of draft "experts" is basically into two groups: those trying to predict the draft and those trying to assess the talent. I greatly prefer the second group and find them much more useful for fantasy football purposes. Matt has always been part of that second group. I mean, Alvin Pearman?
So if Matt was in the former group, I wouldn't be as concerned with his statement because it may be supporting a prediction that TB will be drafted as the 4th best QB. But since I place Matt in the talent assessment group, I am much more worried. Can I trust his talent evaluation of TB this year? Is he "fighting" for TB and ranking him higher than his assessed talent on film? Is he downgrading Bortles or other white QBs as part of this effort? Has he done this in other years (yes, I saw Newton as 3rd)? With other positions?
I think it's a troublesome statement for those reasons. Not because I care, or disagree, with his opinions on race and the NFL.
OMG!!!! This is classic !!!!!
The Giants grabbed another Syracuse player in the draft, trading up to take quarterback Ryan Nassib in the fourth round Saturday. Matt Waldman, a scouting expert who ranked the quarterbacks for the Fifth Down before the draft, rated him third, ahead of the new Jet Geno Smith (5th).
Waldman had the #1 QB Geno Smith ranked 5th !!!!!!!!!! Did he unconsciously drop Geno because of the color of his skin?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
He had Tyler Wilson #1 ahead of both Manuel and Geno Smith. He didn't even have Cam Newton #1 in his year. As stated before, Matt should be focusing on figuring out how to better scout quarterbacks and a lot less on trying to be judge and jury of race relations. He needs to separate whatever racial frustrations he has in his life from his football work.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Geno wasn't the first QB drafted - and I think it's too early to write the book on any of the 2013 QB class. Right now they all look fairly bad.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
I think this whole thing is unfortunate. Matt's projections are as credible as any other "expert"'s but he does put in a hell of a lot of effort and it's worth going through if you don't follow the college players.
I think the unfortunate part here is going to be the classic, "Screw one goat and you're labeled a goat****er the rest of your life ". I think this is going to affect how people perceive him and his judgment from this point forward.
I think the unfortunate part here is going to be the classic, "Screw one goat and you're labeled a goat****er the rest of your life ". I think this is going to affect how people perceive him and his judgment from this point forward.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
He should stick to football - in the same way that nobody cares about the political opinions of Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin, nobody cares about Waldman's views on racism. They're not pertinent to the job, so save the sanctimonious drivel for elsewhere.
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
I wonder what Jordy Nelson thinks of all this.
Black
Footballguy
Good post. Appreciate the thought and tone.I'm not surprised that Matt has opinions like this one. If you know his background and read his non-football links, it's pretty obvious. I don't really care about his opinions. Nor do I argue with most of them.
Having said that, it's very important to leave opinions not supported by analysis out of your work if you are supposed to be assessing and ranking the talent of NFL prospects. My grouping of draft "experts" is basically into two groups: those trying to predict the draft and those trying to assess the talent. I greatly prefer the second group and find them much more useful for fantasy football purposes. Matt has always been part of that second group. I mean, Alvin Pearman?
So if Matt was in the former group, I wouldn't be as concerned with his statement because it may be supporting a prediction that TB will be drafted as the 4th best QB. But since I place Matt in the talent assessment group, I am much more worried. Can I trust his talent evaluation of TB this year? Is he "fighting" for TB and ranking him higher than his assessed talent on film? Is he downgrading Bortles or other white QBs as part of this effort? Has he done this in other years (yes, I saw Newton as 3rd)? With other positions?
I think it's a troublesome statement for those reasons. Not because I care, or disagree, with his opinions on race and the NFL.
John 14:6
Jesus is Lord!
yellowdog
Footballguy
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
But critics could certainly pick apart even that "blind" practice of hiring as racist.I know you're just kidding, but putting ugly words in other people's mouths is not astrategy.
Do we need to look further than the clear lack of diversity in hiring results? Isn't that proof enough? It certainly is when applied to other fields and industries.
Isn't it possible that those doing the hiring according to what they think qualifies as good writing are unavoidably biased because they tend to like writers that write a certain way? Do people that write the King's English get a subconscious leg up because they appear more competent? Is it that much of a stretch to think that "well-written" is simply the same analysis we see when a black man is described "well-spoken" or "articulate"?
Now, I don't think FBG's is racist. But I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt on things. But your defense is pretty useless when the accusation contains an argument that can't really be refuted. Which is exactly the complaint with Waldman's accusation. How can anyone pass on Bridgewater and prove they didn't do so out of racism? Even if they take another black player, they can be accused of thinking that blacks can run and catch but can't be trusted with a thinking position.
Now if we all agree that racism is wrong, why would I feel comfortable accusing someone of it with so little evidence? Why would I think it okay to float that balloon over someone's house knowing how ugly an accusation it is?
For the record, I don't think Waldman needs to be disciplined or anything of the sort by FBG's. But I don't think he's being treated unfairly when the marketplace and marketplace of ideas give him a big ole dose of backlash for his thinking.
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
It does matter. You think race relations don't matter? You don't think accusing someone of racism based on unfounded speculation has no consequence to the accused?
This backlash is the best defense there is. Anyone reading this thread at least now has both sides of the argument.
If we all just shrugged it off and said nothing, anyone coming across Waldman's comments would read them and find them unchallenged. So then what would they take away from it? Perhaps that Waldman is correct.
So silence in response to an unfounded speculative accusation can give it an air of truth.
We SHOULD ask people for their proof when they go around accusing others of wrongdoing. Waldman isn't being mistreated.
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
Not explicitly.
But if Bridgewater falls out of the top 10 and there's a 75% chance it was because of subconscious racism, then it should follow that Bridgewater isn't being regarded as highly as he should because of racism.
So if the people that are best at it and have the largest financial stake in it are as biased as Waldman assumes, what could he possibly think about someone without a stake in getting it wrong who might rank Bridgewater outside the top 10? I'm guessing he thinks those that aren't racist are just incompetent at evaluating talent. So if you disagree with him, you are racist, stupid, or maybe both.
He's basically taken off the table the option of "reasonable minds differ" on Bridgewater. At best, the reasonable minds in the front offices of the teams with top 10 picks have a 25% of not being racist.
I'm abusing the math a bit, but the general sense is the same. If he's so confident that Bridgewater is so clearly a top 10 talent that the odds favor (by 3 to 1) that racism is the cause of him falling outside the top 10, what is the reasonable assumption about what he thinks of people that don't have Bridgewater in the top 10?
Am I inferring too much? Maybe. But not according to Waldman's Standards for Reasonable Assumption and Public Accusation.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Which is very strange given his well below average history of evaluating quarterbacks.
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
What's the bigger and more offensive inference?
1) That if Bridgewater falls outside the top 10, it's 75% due to racism, or
2) That if you disagree with Waldman on Bridgewater, it's 75% likely he thinks it's due to racism?
We're essentially getting crickets chirping and tumble weeds rolling through when it comes to Waldman's basis for #1.
Sauce for the goose, as they say.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
First, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Once again, if you bothered to actually listen or read the things that you comment on, the form of "racism" that Matt is speaking on is nowhere close to reaching the level of vitriol rape or murder recieve in the public eye, unless you think that a column writer innocently sticking the word "black" in before "young man" to describe him is akin to rape.
theres a 75 chance he falls out of the top ten , and if he does its because of racism, so waldman is saying there is a 75 percent chance of racismFirst, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I've seen your work throughout this thread, so I believe that you believe this.theres a 75 chance he falls out of the top ten , and if he does its because of racism, so waldman is saying there is a 75 percent chance of racismFirst, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
of course I doI've seen your work throughout this thread, so I believe that you believe this.theres a 75 chance he falls out of the top ten , and if he does its because of racism, so waldman is saying there is a 75 percent chance of racismFirst, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
exactlyof course I doI've seen your work throughout this thread, so I believe that you believe this.theres a 75 chance he falls out of the top ten , and if he does its because of racism, so waldman is saying there is a 75 percent chance of racismFirst, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
This is a contentious enough topic. Please leave the insults, commentary, and labeling of other posters at the door and discuss the topic in a civil fashion.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
You're right. My apologies. I wouldn't want to distract from the discussion of racism like the productive prolonged argument over the semantics of what 75% means.FBG Moderator said:
I'll bow out for good now.
RUSF18
Footballguy
Actually, Waldman is saying there is a 100% chance of racism impacting draft decisions in the NFL. The 75% comes from any of those teams happening to land in the top 10 this year.johnjohn said:theres a 75 chance he falls out of the top ten , and if he does its because of racism, so waldman is saying there is a 75 percent chance of racismDr. Octopus said:First, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.JamesTheScot said:Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
comfortably numb
Footballguy
:IBTL:
Old Smiley
Footballguy
It's funny. I heard MW's rant go by and I didn't even think too much about it. Just kind of went, "Yup".
I don't think Mr. Waldman was talking about the football side of team's operations; more the owners and the marketing departments. Coaches and GMs want to win. Owners want to become 'Murrica's team. There's money in that. RGIII might sell the most jerseys, but look at the Cowboys. They've been a .500 team for twenty years and yet they play more night games than anyone else in the league. Now THAT'S a successful franchise.
I think hardcore fans might be a bit blind to that. They DO only want to win. They forget that the big money is in the peripheral fans.
Having said all that though, Mr. Waldman might be underestimating how much evaluators still value size. That might be changing, but I know Cosell still says: "Size is an attribute." You grade it. It figures in.
I don't think Mr. Waldman was talking about the football side of team's operations; more the owners and the marketing departments. Coaches and GMs want to win. Owners want to become 'Murrica's team. There's money in that. RGIII might sell the most jerseys, but look at the Cowboys. They've been a .500 team for twenty years and yet they play more night games than anyone else in the league. Now THAT'S a successful franchise.
I think hardcore fans might be a bit blind to that. They DO only want to win. They forget that the big money is in the peripheral fans.
Having said all that though, Mr. Waldman might be underestimating how much evaluators still value size. That might be changing, but I know Cosell still says: "Size is an attribute." You grade it. It figures in.
Neofight
Footballguy
I'm not commenting on the first few paragraphs of your post because you are creating a false dichotomy and, given the facts (as they've been offered), Waldman's comments come off as unwarranted (perhaps worse).
Your last paragraph is worth talking about, however. I'm assuming Waldman's RSP has come out by now and there is a good breakdown of Bridgewater. I'm curious to know what he has to say about Bridgewater's arm strength and lack of size. I'm also curious to know what Waldman and others think of Football Outsiders LCF numbers. If memory serves he has referenced these in his own column in the past:
2014 FO LCF (formerly Lewin Career Forecast)
Player School LCF
Aaron Murray Georgia 2,009
A.J. McCarron Alabama 1,551
Jimmy Garoppolo E. Illinois 1,530
Tajh Boyd Clemson 1,418
Teddy Bridgewater Louisville 1,411
Derek Carr Fresno St. 1,223
Blake Bortles UCF 1,059
Johnny Manziel Texas A&M 983
Zach Mettenberger LSU 757
Bridgwater is middle of the pack while Bortles and Manziel are near the bottom. I'm not stating these numbers are gospel, but I'll say emphatically they are not motivated by pigmentation.
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
Wow, I went back and re-read the transcript in post #15. If your assertion is correct, then I may have been giving him too much credit.First, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
Instead of saying that if Bridgewater falls out of the top 10, it will be 75% likely to be due to racism, he instead said that there is a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10 and it will (that's an important word) be because he doesn't look enough like what a team wants as the face of a franchise...which he attributes to subconscious racism.
So, in essence, he said that there is a 75% that Bridgewater slides out of the top 10, and there is a 100% chance of it being due to subconscious racism if it happens.
Now, if he can only slide out of the top 10 because of racism, and there is a 75% chance he will slide out of the top 10, then doesn't that mean that there is a 75% chance that the top 10 teams are racist?
So then I was wrong in that instead of saying that there's a 75% that he slides due to racism, Waldman instead said that there's just a flat 75% chance of the top 10 teams being racist, albeit subconsciously.
I'm tying to remember my algebraic properties and how the parenthesis work with multiplication, but I'm pretty sure that's how it plays out.
So do you think you are helping him by drawing that distinction?
As for the Brady reference, my point is perfectly valid. That was a horrible example for you to draw on in defense of Waldman. That was my point about Brady...I can't believe you went there in defense of Waldman. If the evaluation of QB's is so reliable pre-draft, how did 32 teams not know that Brady had even starter potential, not to mention pro-bowl or HOF potential, when they were picking in the first 5 rounds of the 2000 draft?
If 32 teams can miss on the non-athletic pocket-passer like Brady, who consequently has the looks and charm to be everyone's fantasy face of the franchise, for 5 rounds, how absolutely freakin' ludicrous is it to say that a non-athletic, undersized pocket-passer like Bridgewater will only slide out of the top 10 due to racism?
I don't care why you brought Brady up. It doesn't matter. He's the perfect example of how imprecise the evaluation process is. It therefore highlights how reckless and baseless it is for Waldman to say what he did.
Last edited by a moderator:
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
If this thread still exists (hint to admins) when Bridgewater falls, people are going to say "so <fill in GM's name here> is a racist!" and non-hilarity ensues.
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
This really is kind of a good point here.Wow, I went back and re-read the transcript in post #15. If your assertion is correct, then I may have been giving him too much credit.First, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
Instead of saying that if Bridgewater falls out of the top 10, it will be 75% likely to be due to racism, he instead said that there is a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10 and it will (that's an important word) be because he doesn't look enough like what a team wants as the face of a franchise...which he attributes to subconscious racism.
So, in essence, he said that there is a 75% that Bridgewater slides out of the top 10, and there is a 100% chance of it being due to subconscious racism if it happens.
Now, if he can only slide out of the top 10 because of racism, and there is a 75% chance he will slide out of the top 10, then doesn't that mean that there is a 75% chance that the top 10 teams are racist?
So then I was wrong in that instead of saying that there's a 75% that he slides due to racism, Waldman instead said that there's just a flat 75% chance of the top 10 teams being racist, albeit subconsciously.
I'm tying to remember my algebraic properties and how the parenthesis work with multiplication, but I'm pretty sure that's how it plays out.
So do you think you are helping him by drawing that distinction?
As for the Brady reference, my point is perfectly valid. That was a horrible example for you to draw on in defense of Waldman. That was my point about Brady...I can't believe you went there in defense of Waldman. If the evaluation of QB's is so reliable pre-draft, how did 32 teams not know that Brady had even starter potential, not to mention pro-bowl or HOF potential, when they were picking in the first 5 rounds of the 2000 draft?
If 32 teams can miss on the non-athletic pocket-passer like Brady, who consequently has the looks and charm to be everyone's fantasy face of the franchise, for 5 rounds, how absolutely freakin' ludicrous is it to say that a non-athletic, undersized pocket-passer like Bridgewater will only slide out of the top 10 due to racism?
I don't care why you brought Brady up. It doesn't matter. He's the perfect example of how imprecise the evaluation process is. It therefore highlights how reckless and baseless it is for Waldman to say what he did.
pghrob
Hail to the Chief
Sam Farmer drops Teddy Bridgewater out of 1st round mock.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79834086/
April 6, 2014 54°
ADVERTISEMENT
NFL mock draft: Johnny's on the (top) spot
DAVID J. PHILLIP / ASSOCIATED PRESS
Former Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel's impressive pro day performance helped propel him to the top Sam Farmer's latest mock draft.
BY SAM FARMER
April 5, 2014, 9:24 p.m.
What a difference a (pro) day makes.
Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel had a great one, consistently hitting his receivers in stride. Louisville's Teddy Bridgewater did not, struggling with his timing and accuracy in a choreographed on-campus workout that NFL scouts traditionally expect to be polished and seamless.
Manziel is the top pick in this mock draft, and Bridgewater tumbles out of the first round. That's based not only on the players' pro day performances, but also on the seismic shift of free agency, in which teams such as Oakland and Tampa Bay addressed (at least for the time being) their pressing need for help at quarterback.
Opinions will continue to shift and evolve right up to the start of the three-day NFL draft, which begins May 8.
1. HOUSTON Manziel, QB, Texas A&M: Manziel's polished pro day turned a lot of heads. Bill O'Brien has worked with smaller quarterbacks and has indicated he has no concerns about that.
2. ST. LOUIS Jadeveon Clowney, DE, South Carolina: This is not a pressing need for the Rams. But they use three and sometimes four defensive ends, and Clowney could be a once-in-a-generation talent.
3. JACKSONVILLE Blake Bortles, QB, UCF: Quarterback Chad Henne would love to see the Jaguars take Sammy Watkins here, and they just might, although Bortles could round into a long-term answer at the position.
4. CLEVELAND Watkins, WR, Clemson: The Browns are sorely lacking offensive weapons, and Watkins would pair nicely with Josh Gordon.
5. OAKLAND Khalil Mack, OLB, Buffalo: Having signed free agent Matt Schaub, the Raiders satisfied their immediate need for a quarterback. With 31-year-old Kevin Burnett on the back end of his career, Oakland needs another impact linebacker.
6. ATLANTA Greg Robinson, T, Auburn: Matt Ryan was under crushing pressure last season, and the Falcons need to upgrade in the trenches.
7. TAMPA BAY Derek Carr, QB, Fresno State: If the Buccaneers don't take a defensive end or offensive tackle, they could go quarterback, even though they signed free agent Josh McCown. Offensive coordinator Jeff Tedford has known Carr since Derek was 5.
8. MINNESOTA Anthony Barr, OLB, UCLA: With Jared Allen gone, the Vikings are in desperate need of a defensive playmaker. Barr fills the bill.
9. BUFFALO Jake Matthews, T, Texas A&M: Even though they had the No. 2 running game last season, the Bills lacked punch in short-yardage situations. A top-shelf tackle is on their wish list, as is a big receiver.
10. DETROIT Justin Gilbert, CB, Oklahoma State: The Lions were 23rd in pass defense last season and need to address a secondary that lost safety Louis Delmas to Miami.
11. TENNESSEE Darqueze Dennard, CB, Michigan State: Dennard could help lessen the sting of losing cornerback Alterraun Verner. If Barr is still on the board, though, the Titans would be hard-pressed to let him slide by.
12. N.Y. GIANTS Eric Ebron, TE, North Carolina: Both the Giants and Jets are interested in Ebron, the top tight end in this class and a versatile player who has drawn favorable comparisons to San Francisco's Vernon Davis.
13. ST. LOUIS Taylor Lewan, T, Michigan: Jake Long suffered two torn ligaments in his right knee at the end of last season and might not be ready for the start of the 2014 season, so that further amplifies the Rams' need for a tackle.
14. CHICAGO Aaron Donald, DT, Pittsburgh: Chicago had the league's worst run defense last season, and with DT Henry Melton now in Dallas, the pressure is on to rebuild at that spot.
15. PITTSBURGH Mike Evans, WR, Texas A&M: Emmanuel Sanders (Denver) and Jerricho Cotchery (Carolina) left in free agency, meaning the Steelers are without last season's Nos. 2 and 3 receivers. The signings of Lance Moore and Darrius Heyward-Bey aren't likely to pick up all that slack.
16. DALLAS Zack Martin, T, Notre Dame: The Cowboys could play Martin at either guard spot during his rookie season, then move him to right tackle to replace Doug Free, who is in the last year of his deal.
17. BALTIMORE Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, FS, Alabama: The Ravens have moved Matt Elam, their top pick last season, from free safety to strong safety. That leaves a vacancy in the secondary and no clear answer about who can fill it.
18. N.Y. JETS Marqise Lee, WR, USC: Lee has the potential to develop into a No. 1 receiver, and the Jets need that. The addition of Eric Decker helps, although he's more of a No. 2.
19. MIAMI C.J. Mosley, ILB, Alabama: If the supply of offensive tackles has run dry and it has in this mock the Dolphins could reach for the best available player. They have invested a lot in linebackers Dannell Ellerbe and Philip Weaver, yet haven't gotten big dividends.
20. ARIZONA Calvin Pryor, FS, Louisville: The Cardinals haven't re-signed Yeremiah Bell, one of last season's starting safeties, and Tyrann Mathieu might not be ready for the start of the season because of a knee injury.
21. GREEN BAY RaShede Hageman, DT, Minnesota: The Packers are re-making their defensive line and they're looking for taller, more powerful guys who can move. The raw, 6-foot-6 Hageman would be a base end in the 3-4 and he could learn from Julius Peppers.
22. PHILADELPHIA Brandin Cooks, WR, Oregon State: The Eagles said goodbye to DeSean Jackson and could be saying hello to the speedy Cooks, who set Pac-12 records last season with 128 receptions for 1,730 yards.
23. KANSAS CITY Odell Beckham Jr., WR, LSU: For all their success, the Chiefs had an underwhelming passing attack last season. Dwayne Bowe will be 30 in September, and he's not going to be around forever.
24. CINCINNATI Kony Ealy, DE, Missouri: The Bengals, who lost DE Michael Johnson, need to ramp up their pass pressure, and Ealy can deliver. Cincinnati would take a hard look at an offensive tackle, but the top ones likely will be gone at this point.
25. SAN DIEGO Xavier Su'a-Filo, G, UCLA: A year after the Chargers used their top pick on tackle D.J. Fluker, they should be in good position to grab the best interior offensive lineman in the class.
26. CLEVELAND Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Eastern Illinois: Garoppolo, who broke all of Tony Romo's passing marks at Eastern Illinois, had a private workout with the Browns. If Cleveland is looking for a QB, Bridgewater could be an option.
27. NEW ORLEANS Kyle Fuller, CB, Virginia Tech: The Saints haven't re-signed longtime starting corner Jabari Greer, and Fuller could develop into a starter down the road.
28. CAROLINA Kelvin Benjamin, WR, Florida State: With Steve Smith (Baltimore) and Brandon LaFell (New England) gone, the Panthers need to start rebuilding their receiving corps. The speedy and productive Benjamin averaged a touchdown every 3.6 catches for the Seminoles last season.
29. NEW ENGLAND Louis Nix III, DT, Notre Dame: Nix could learn behind Vince Wilfork, who signed a contract extension with the Patriots this week, and eventually take over as the man in the middle of that defense.
30. SAN FRANCISCO Jason Verrett, CB, TCU: The feisty and ultra-quick Verrett could find his way onto the field as a slot corner, replacing Carlos Rogers (Oakland), who was San Francisco's slot corner the past three seasons.
31. DENVER Weston Richburg, C, Colorado State: The Broncos' top three needs are, in order, middle linebacker, interior offensive line, and cornerback. This might be a bit early for Richburg, but he'll get a look.
32. SEATTLE Timmy Jernigan, DT, Florida State: Clinton McDonald (Tampa Bay) was a big loss for the Seahawks, who also will be on the lookout for receivers and offensive linemen. Jernigan could be a bargain here.
Sam Farmer writes for Tribune Newspapers
Related Content
Tennessee Titans cut Chris Johnson
Eagles Coach Chip Kelly can't attend fans' wedding because of draft
NFL takes issue with one Kevin Costner scene in 'Draft Day'
Which NFL teams are on their games this off-season?
Jim Kelly's battle with cancer adds to anguish for Buffalo Bills
NFL could expand playoff field to 14 teams as early as 2014 season
ADVERTISEMENT
Account
Sign in
Register
Connect
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Send Feedback
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
202 West 1st Street,
Los Angeles, California, 90012
Copyright 2013
View full site
Back to Top
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79834086/
April 6, 2014 54°
ADVERTISEMENT
NFL mock draft: Johnny's on the (top) spot
DAVID J. PHILLIP / ASSOCIATED PRESS
Former Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel's impressive pro day performance helped propel him to the top Sam Farmer's latest mock draft.
BY SAM FARMER
April 5, 2014, 9:24 p.m.
What a difference a (pro) day makes.
Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel had a great one, consistently hitting his receivers in stride. Louisville's Teddy Bridgewater did not, struggling with his timing and accuracy in a choreographed on-campus workout that NFL scouts traditionally expect to be polished and seamless.
Manziel is the top pick in this mock draft, and Bridgewater tumbles out of the first round. That's based not only on the players' pro day performances, but also on the seismic shift of free agency, in which teams such as Oakland and Tampa Bay addressed (at least for the time being) their pressing need for help at quarterback.
Opinions will continue to shift and evolve right up to the start of the three-day NFL draft, which begins May 8.
1. HOUSTON Manziel, QB, Texas A&M: Manziel's polished pro day turned a lot of heads. Bill O'Brien has worked with smaller quarterbacks and has indicated he has no concerns about that.
2. ST. LOUIS Jadeveon Clowney, DE, South Carolina: This is not a pressing need for the Rams. But they use three and sometimes four defensive ends, and Clowney could be a once-in-a-generation talent.
3. JACKSONVILLE Blake Bortles, QB, UCF: Quarterback Chad Henne would love to see the Jaguars take Sammy Watkins here, and they just might, although Bortles could round into a long-term answer at the position.
4. CLEVELAND Watkins, WR, Clemson: The Browns are sorely lacking offensive weapons, and Watkins would pair nicely with Josh Gordon.
5. OAKLAND Khalil Mack, OLB, Buffalo: Having signed free agent Matt Schaub, the Raiders satisfied their immediate need for a quarterback. With 31-year-old Kevin Burnett on the back end of his career, Oakland needs another impact linebacker.
6. ATLANTA Greg Robinson, T, Auburn: Matt Ryan was under crushing pressure last season, and the Falcons need to upgrade in the trenches.
7. TAMPA BAY Derek Carr, QB, Fresno State: If the Buccaneers don't take a defensive end or offensive tackle, they could go quarterback, even though they signed free agent Josh McCown. Offensive coordinator Jeff Tedford has known Carr since Derek was 5.
8. MINNESOTA Anthony Barr, OLB, UCLA: With Jared Allen gone, the Vikings are in desperate need of a defensive playmaker. Barr fills the bill.
9. BUFFALO Jake Matthews, T, Texas A&M: Even though they had the No. 2 running game last season, the Bills lacked punch in short-yardage situations. A top-shelf tackle is on their wish list, as is a big receiver.
10. DETROIT Justin Gilbert, CB, Oklahoma State: The Lions were 23rd in pass defense last season and need to address a secondary that lost safety Louis Delmas to Miami.
11. TENNESSEE Darqueze Dennard, CB, Michigan State: Dennard could help lessen the sting of losing cornerback Alterraun Verner. If Barr is still on the board, though, the Titans would be hard-pressed to let him slide by.
12. N.Y. GIANTS Eric Ebron, TE, North Carolina: Both the Giants and Jets are interested in Ebron, the top tight end in this class and a versatile player who has drawn favorable comparisons to San Francisco's Vernon Davis.
13. ST. LOUIS Taylor Lewan, T, Michigan: Jake Long suffered two torn ligaments in his right knee at the end of last season and might not be ready for the start of the 2014 season, so that further amplifies the Rams' need for a tackle.
14. CHICAGO Aaron Donald, DT, Pittsburgh: Chicago had the league's worst run defense last season, and with DT Henry Melton now in Dallas, the pressure is on to rebuild at that spot.
15. PITTSBURGH Mike Evans, WR, Texas A&M: Emmanuel Sanders (Denver) and Jerricho Cotchery (Carolina) left in free agency, meaning the Steelers are without last season's Nos. 2 and 3 receivers. The signings of Lance Moore and Darrius Heyward-Bey aren't likely to pick up all that slack.
16. DALLAS Zack Martin, T, Notre Dame: The Cowboys could play Martin at either guard spot during his rookie season, then move him to right tackle to replace Doug Free, who is in the last year of his deal.
17. BALTIMORE Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, FS, Alabama: The Ravens have moved Matt Elam, their top pick last season, from free safety to strong safety. That leaves a vacancy in the secondary and no clear answer about who can fill it.
18. N.Y. JETS Marqise Lee, WR, USC: Lee has the potential to develop into a No. 1 receiver, and the Jets need that. The addition of Eric Decker helps, although he's more of a No. 2.
19. MIAMI C.J. Mosley, ILB, Alabama: If the supply of offensive tackles has run dry and it has in this mock the Dolphins could reach for the best available player. They have invested a lot in linebackers Dannell Ellerbe and Philip Weaver, yet haven't gotten big dividends.
20. ARIZONA Calvin Pryor, FS, Louisville: The Cardinals haven't re-signed Yeremiah Bell, one of last season's starting safeties, and Tyrann Mathieu might not be ready for the start of the season because of a knee injury.
21. GREEN BAY RaShede Hageman, DT, Minnesota: The Packers are re-making their defensive line and they're looking for taller, more powerful guys who can move. The raw, 6-foot-6 Hageman would be a base end in the 3-4 and he could learn from Julius Peppers.
22. PHILADELPHIA Brandin Cooks, WR, Oregon State: The Eagles said goodbye to DeSean Jackson and could be saying hello to the speedy Cooks, who set Pac-12 records last season with 128 receptions for 1,730 yards.
23. KANSAS CITY Odell Beckham Jr., WR, LSU: For all their success, the Chiefs had an underwhelming passing attack last season. Dwayne Bowe will be 30 in September, and he's not going to be around forever.
24. CINCINNATI Kony Ealy, DE, Missouri: The Bengals, who lost DE Michael Johnson, need to ramp up their pass pressure, and Ealy can deliver. Cincinnati would take a hard look at an offensive tackle, but the top ones likely will be gone at this point.
25. SAN DIEGO Xavier Su'a-Filo, G, UCLA: A year after the Chargers used their top pick on tackle D.J. Fluker, they should be in good position to grab the best interior offensive lineman in the class.
26. CLEVELAND Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Eastern Illinois: Garoppolo, who broke all of Tony Romo's passing marks at Eastern Illinois, had a private workout with the Browns. If Cleveland is looking for a QB, Bridgewater could be an option.
27. NEW ORLEANS Kyle Fuller, CB, Virginia Tech: The Saints haven't re-signed longtime starting corner Jabari Greer, and Fuller could develop into a starter down the road.
28. CAROLINA Kelvin Benjamin, WR, Florida State: With Steve Smith (Baltimore) and Brandon LaFell (New England) gone, the Panthers need to start rebuilding their receiving corps. The speedy and productive Benjamin averaged a touchdown every 3.6 catches for the Seminoles last season.
29. NEW ENGLAND Louis Nix III, DT, Notre Dame: Nix could learn behind Vince Wilfork, who signed a contract extension with the Patriots this week, and eventually take over as the man in the middle of that defense.
30. SAN FRANCISCO Jason Verrett, CB, TCU: The feisty and ultra-quick Verrett could find his way onto the field as a slot corner, replacing Carlos Rogers (Oakland), who was San Francisco's slot corner the past three seasons.
31. DENVER Weston Richburg, C, Colorado State: The Broncos' top three needs are, in order, middle linebacker, interior offensive line, and cornerback. This might be a bit early for Richburg, but he'll get a look.
32. SEATTLE Timmy Jernigan, DT, Florida State: Clinton McDonald (Tampa Bay) was a big loss for the Seahawks, who also will be on the lookout for receivers and offensive linemen. Jernigan could be a bargain here.
Sam Farmer writes for Tribune Newspapers
Related Content
Tennessee Titans cut Chris Johnson
Eagles Coach Chip Kelly can't attend fans' wedding because of draft
NFL takes issue with one Kevin Costner scene in 'Draft Day'
Which NFL teams are on their games this off-season?
Jim Kelly's battle with cancer adds to anguish for Buffalo Bills
NFL could expand playoff field to 14 teams as early as 2014 season
ADVERTISEMENT
Account
Sign in
Register
Connect
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Send Feedback
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
202 West 1st Street,
Los Angeles, California, 90012
Copyright 2013
View full site
Back to Top
fatness
Footballguy
Donsmith753
Footballguy
Back and to the left
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
It would be a good point, except that Waldman has more experience with racism and has talked to NFL people, so he knows more. This is why no matter how wel made any critical points are, they won't beat out Waldman. Period. Full Stop. QEDThis really is kind of a good point here.Wow, I went back and re-read the transcript in post #15. If your assertion is correct, then I may have been giving him too much credit.First, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense. Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
Instead of saying that if Bridgewater falls out of the top 10, it will be 75% likely to be due to racism, he instead said that there is a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10 and it will (that's an important word) be because he doesn't look enough like what a team wants as the face of a franchise...which he attributes to subconscious racism.
So, in essence, he said that there is a 75% that Bridgewater slides out of the top 10, and there is a 100% chance of it being due to subconscious racism if it happens.
Now, if he can only slide out of the top 10 because of racism, and there is a 75% chance he will slide out of the top 10, then doesn't that mean that there is a 75% chance that the top 10 teams are racist?
So then I was wrong in that instead of saying that there's a 75% that he slides due to racism, Waldman instead said that there's just a flat 75% chance of the top 10 teams being racist, albeit subconsciously.
I'm tying to remember my algebraic properties and how the parenthesis work with multiplication, but I'm pretty sure that's how it plays out.
So do you think you are helping him by drawing that distinction?
As for the Brady reference, my point is perfectly valid. That was a horrible example for you to draw on in defense of Waldman. That was my point about Brady...I can't believe you went there in defense of Waldman. If the evaluation of QB's is so reliable pre-draft, how did 32 teams not know that Brady had even starter potential, not to mention pro-bowl or HOF potential, when they were picking in the first 5 rounds of the 2000 draft?
If 32 teams can miss on the non-athletic pocket-passer like Brady, who consequently has the looks and charm to be everyone's fantasy face of the franchise, for 5 rounds, how absolutely freakin' ludicrous is it to say that a non-athletic, undersized pocket-passer like Bridgewater will only slide out of the top 10 due to racism?
I don't care why you brought Brady up. It doesn't matter. He's the perfect example of how imprecise the evaluation process is. It therefore highlights how reckless and baseless it is for Waldman to say what he did.
Similar threads
