INTENTIONAL OR NOT, How Much Do YOU Think Racism Impacts NFL Draft Pos (1 Viewer)

[Ramblin Wreck]

If Johnny Manziel were a black guy there's a chunk of the NFL that'd be singing a much harsher tune. The line between brash and uppity is only a few pigments wide.

Remember Cam Newton and the crap he did in college? What color is he? What draft pick was he?

 

[jurb26]

If Johnny Manziel were a black guy there's a chunk of the NFL that'd be singing a much harsher tune. The line between brash and uppity is only a few pigments wide.

Remember Cam Newton and the crap he did in college? What color is he? What draft pick was he?

And Winston has already had his fair share of turbulence. He too will still probably go 1 overall. There don't seem to be any facts supplying this racist notion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 24 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB" thread has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them (aside from the OP) Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

 

[Christo]

The idea that unconscious bias does not exist in the minds of GMs is untenable. Studies have shown that interviewers are more likely to give favorable reviews of candidates if the interviewer is drinking hot coffee than if he's drinking ice water. Thinking that race (or GMs) would be immune to such biases is pretty unlikely.

But the question is not whether GMs are immune from bias. It's whether that bias impacts the decision to draft a QB.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

Everything is fair until you get to the red sentences. Waldman can evaluate Bridgewater all he wants. He can rank him #1 overall or #100 overall. Time will tell if he is right.

But don't you let it's slightly arrogant for a guy that basically equates to a Home Basement Evaluator to claim his evaluations are so good that if over 1/3rd of the NFL GMs disagree with him then they are all racist? The same guy that evaluated Tyler Wilson as the #1 QB just one year ago! And isn't there plenty of evidence to show that NFL GMs are willing to draft black QBs, draft black QBs pretty high, and have black QB/players as the "face of their franchise"?

I know Waldman has mentioned that he has a black wife but that does not make him an expert on race relations all of a sudden. Evidence suggests he doesn't have an understanding of cultural dynamics. He should really stick to discussing the football aspects of his evaluations. And debate those pro's and con's with those he wants to subscribe to his work.

 

[jurb26]

Yeah, I thought that was kind of a strange rational as well RW. Almost like saying I'm pulling the race card because they don't agree with me.

 

[KellysHeroes]

I think those days are over (in terms of pro sports). Black/White/Hispanic/Gay, doesn't matter... if the kid is a baller then the teams don't care what he is.

 

[RUSF18]

The idea that unconscious bias does not exist in the minds of GMs is untenable. Studies have shown that interviewers are more likely to give favorable reviews of candidates if the interviewer is drinking hot coffee than if he's drinking ice water. Thinking that race (or GMs) would be immune to such biases is pretty unlikely.

And yet, I'm sure every front office staff that has been in place for more than a year has taken a black guy in the first round, regardless of position. So the unconscious racism isn't sneaking up there, but it is when evaluating QBs? GMs are drafting black guys to lead their defenses, or lead their offensive lines, but unconsciously they have a problem with black players leading their offense?

 

[Bojang0301]

If Johnny Manziel were a black guy there's a chunk of the NFL that'd be singing a much harsher tune. The line between brash and uppity is only a few pigments wide.

Oh you mean if he was Mike Vick and went first overall. This is so ridiculous. You know what perpetuates racist thoughts, things like this thread.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Whoever has the best tools to succeed will get drafted 1st no matter what race they are. Michael Vick went #1 overall, race is not the deciding factor IMHO.

I stayed out of the Waldman thread because I felt the remark was foolish and didn't want to add fuel to it. Lots of African Americans have been taken #1 overall in the draft.

 

[RUSF18]

If Johnny Manziel were a black guy there's a chunk of the NFL that'd be singing a much harsher tune. The line between brash and uppity is only a few pigments wide.

Oh you mean if he was Mike Vick and went first overall. This is so ridiculous. You know what perpetuates racist thoughts, things like this thread.

It's pretty possible that conscious racism - applied mostly by white guys - led to Manziel being thought of as only a defensive back prospect coming out of high school by some programs.

 

[cobalt_27]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Agree to a point. But, he spends hundreds of pages every year explaining his rationale and supporting his opinions and rankings, sometimes sinking his teeth into the most inane minutiae. Yet, here he drops the racism card, which he knows is radioactive, and does nothing to support it other than to say, well, it's just his opinion. That's a problem when you have positioned yourself as someone with unique insights. If he has inside information that suggests racism will play a role in Bridgewater's stock falling, I want him to follow that up by addressing four questions:

1. How did he arrive at the 75% level of confidence. He's a data guy, he should be able to answer this.

2. What recent draft history suggests race has played a role in black QB devaluations?

3. Without divulging names or organizations, describe the tone of conversations he has had--and referenced with NFL personnel that leads him to believe this.

4. What sort of drop (e.g., below top 10? top 20? out of first round?) would make him feel confident race played a role in his stock dropping?

Short of answering these questions, directly or indirectly, he has done himself an incredible disservice and undermined his credibility. Again, he HAS to know better that you can't play the racism card without backing it up.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

Everything is fair until you get to the red sentences. Waldman can evaluate Bridgewater all he wants. He can rank him #1 overall or #100 overall. Time will tell if he is right.

But don't you let it's slightly arrogant for a guy that basically equates to a Home Basement Evaluator to claim his evaluations are so good that if over 1/3rd of the NFL GMs disagree with him then they are all racist? The same guy that evaluated Tyler Wilson as the #1 QB just one year ago! And isn't there plenty of evidence to show that NFL GMs are willing to draft black QBs, draft black QBs pretty high, and have black QB/players as the "face of their franchise"?

I know Waldman has mentioned that he has a black wife but that does not make him an expert on race relations all of a sudden. Evidence suggests he doesn't have an understanding of cultural dynamics. He should really stick to discussing the football aspects of his evaluations. And debate those pro's and con's with those he wants to subscribe to his work.

I have no opinion on arrogance or not. If you are analyzing players, and you feel confident enough to do it as a business, who cares about arrogance. It's all about outcome, I assume, for people who pay for FF info/rankings/etc. For me personally, it's entertainment. I like to read people who write well, make persuasive, cogent arguments. I don't expect predictive results from any of these guys. I love reading Blooms top 100, if you look back at them there is limited at best predictive outcome.

I don't know Matt Waldman, I have never purchased his RSP, though I have read sample snippets. He believes in his process. The customer either does or doesn't.

The Tyler Wilson thing is meaningless at this point. He's one year into his career and on an NFL roster. And referencing NFL GM's is not a convincing argument. They miss allllllll the time. Who's to say that there is not room for a better -non NFL employed evaluator.

Writers write. There's nothing wrong with a sportswriter offering an opinion-even social commentary-on a topic relevant to sports.

 

[Christo]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

If anything, that shows why Waldman should not be listened to for anything. The guy misses on players all the time. He has no basis to assume that if the NFL doesn't agree with him the conclusion is racism.

 

[KCitons]

:IBTL:

Oh sorry, wrong thread.

 

[jurb26]

So why are we only discussing race as it applies to Black QBs? Why not include White RB, WR, DB and Black K?

 

[cobalt_27]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

Everything is fair until you get to the red sentences. Waldman can evaluate Bridgewater all he wants. He can rank him #1 overall or #100 overall. Time will tell if he is right.

But don't you let it's slightly arrogant for a guy that basically equates to a Home Basement Evaluator to claim his evaluations are so good that if over 1/3rd of the NFL GMs disagree with him then they are all racist? The same guy that evaluated Tyler Wilson as the #1 QB just one year ago! And isn't there plenty of evidence to show that NFL GMs are willing to draft black QBs, draft black QBs pretty high, and have black QB/players as the "face of their franchise"?

I know Waldman has mentioned that he has a black wife but that does not make him an expert on race relations all of a sudden. Evidence suggests he doesn't have an understanding of cultural dynamics. He should really stick to discussing the football aspects of his evaluations. And debate those pro's and con's with those he wants to subscribe to his work.

Writers write. There's nothing wrong with a sportswriter offering an opinion-even social commentary-on a topic relevant to sports.

Is it too much to ask him to show his work? He does this with every other opinion.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

If anything, that shows why Waldman should not be listened to for anything. The guy misses on players all the time. He has no basis to assume that if the NFL doesn't agree with him the conclusion is racism.

And that's a judgement you are entitled to make. But I would want to list everyone else who "misses" on players all the time: Josh Norris, Gil Brandt (who everyone obviously knows was a long time Dallas Cowboys scout), pretty much every FF ranking site, and the hardcore draftniks that populate these boards (EBF, TD Mills, Xue, and a million others I'm missing).

His basis is his confidence in his player evaluation. If you all are expecting a certain level of certainty then you judge for yourselves on his outcomes. To latch onto the Bridgewater thing is something different. It's political worldview.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

Everything is fair until you get to the red sentences. Waldman can evaluate Bridgewater all he wants. He can rank him #1 overall or #100 overall. Time will tell if he is right.

But don't you let it's slightly arrogant for a guy that basically equates to a Home Basement Evaluator to claim his evaluations are so good that if over 1/3rd of the NFL GMs disagree with him then they are all racist? The same guy that evaluated Tyler Wilson as the #1 QB just one year ago! And isn't there plenty of evidence to show that NFL GMs are willing to draft black QBs, draft black QBs pretty high, and have black QB/players as the "face of their franchise"?

I know Waldman has mentioned that he has a black wife but that does not make him an expert on race relations all of a sudden. Evidence suggests he doesn't have an understanding of cultural dynamics. He should really stick to discussing the football aspects of his evaluations. And debate those pro's and con's with those he wants to subscribe to his work.

I have no opinion on arrogance or not. If you are analyzing players, and you feel confident enough to do it as a business, who cares about arrogance. It's all about outcome, I assume, for people who pay for FF info/rankings/etc. For me personally, it's entertainment. I like to read people who write well, make persuasive, cogent arguments. I don't expect predictive results from any of these guys. I love reading Blooms top 100, if you look back at them there is limited at best predictive outcome.

I don't know Matt Waldman, I have never purchased his RSP, though I have read sample snippets. He believes in his process. The customer either does or doesn't.

The Tyler Wilson thing is meaningless at this point. He's one year into his career and on an NFL roster. And referencing NFL GM's is not a convincing argument. They miss allllllll the time. Who's to say that there is not room for a better -non NFL employed evaluator.

Writers write. There's nothing wrong with a sportswriter offering an opinion-even social commentary-on a topic relevant to sports.

Somehow, I think something someone says in a podcast ought to be given a little more leeway than a fully thought out article. He hasn't written an article on it. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking there's a distinction, but it's not as if he wrote on this issue, providing grounds and the like. Really too much was made of it in the original post and frankly maybe now. It's off-season and people are a little bored, manufacturing controversy. It would be good to get back to football.

 

[cobalt_27]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

Everything is fair until you get to the red sentences. Waldman can evaluate Bridgewater all he wants. He can rank him #1 overall or #100 overall. Time will tell if he is right.

But don't you let it's slightly arrogant for a guy that basically equates to a Home Basement Evaluator to claim his evaluations are so good that if over 1/3rd of the NFL GMs disagree with him then they are all racist? The same guy that evaluated Tyler Wilson as the #1 QB just one year ago! And isn't there plenty of evidence to show that NFL GMs are willing to draft black QBs, draft black QBs pretty high, and have black QB/players as the "face of their franchise"?

I know Waldman has mentioned that he has a black wife but that does not make him an expert on race relations all of a sudden. Evidence suggests he doesn't have an understanding of cultural dynamics. He should really stick to discussing the football aspects of his evaluations. And debate those pro's and con's with those he wants to subscribe to his work.

I have no opinion on arrogance or not. If you are analyzing players, and you feel confident enough to do it as a business, who cares about arrogance. It's all about outcome, I assume, for people who pay for FF info/rankings/etc. For me personally, it's entertainment. I like to read people who write well, make persuasive, cogent arguments. I don't expect predictive results from any of these guys. I love reading Blooms top 100, if you look back at them there is limited at best predictive outcome.

I don't know Matt Waldman, I have never purchased his RSP, though I have read sample snippets. He believes in his process. The customer either does or doesn't.

The Tyler Wilson thing is meaningless at this point. He's one year into his career and on an NFL roster. And referencing NFL GM's is not a convincing argument. They miss allllllll the time. Who's to say that there is not room for a better -non NFL employed evaluator.Writers write. There's nothing wrong with a sportswriter offering an opinion-even social commentary-on a topic relevant to sports.

Somehow, I think something someone says in a podcast ought to be given a little more leeway than a fully thought out article. He hasn't written an article on it. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking there's a distinction, but it's not as if he wrote on this issue, providing grounds and the like. Really too much was made of it in the original post and frankly maybe now. It's off-season and people are a little bored, manufacturing controversy. It would be good to get back to football.

He posted in the thread with his namesake, defended his position, made oblique references to say he has reasons for his opinions, but basically said he doesn't have time or interest in discussing this. It's not like he accidentally or casually came up with this. It's clear this has been on his radar and has some well-formulated opinions about Bridgewater, race, and his eventual draft position.

 

[Christo]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

If anything, that shows why Waldman should not be listened to for anything. The guy misses on players all the time. He has no basis to assume that if the NFL doesn't agree with him the conclusion is racism.

And that's a judgement you are entitled to make. But I would want to list everyone else who "misses" on players all the time: Josh Norris, Gil Brandt (who everyone obviously knows was a long time Dallas Cowboys scout), pretty much every FF ranking site, and the hardcore draftniks that populate these boards (EBF, TD Mills, Xue, and a million others I'm missing).

His basis is his confidence in his player evaluation. If you all are expecting a certain level of certainty then you judge for yourselves on his outcomes. To latch onto the Bridgewater thing is something different. It's political worldview.

Yet, none of those other guys are out there claiming racism if the draft doesn't go the way they think it should.

 

[squistion]

Somehow, I think something someone says in a podcast ought to be given a little more leeway than a fully thought out article. He hasn't written an article on it. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking there's a distinction, but it's not as if he wrote on this issue, providing grounds and the like. Really too much was made of it in the original post and frankly maybe now. It's off-season and people are a little bored, manufacturing controversy. It would be good to get back to football.

Tell me about it. A guy makes an offhand remark in a podcast which is his opinion and people call him a race hustler and act like he was Riley Cooper using the N word (but not the same people who had a problem with Riley Cooper using the N word).

Unconscious racism exists, people, and has been proven in numerous studies. Will that happen when Bridgewater is drafted? Maybe, maybe not, but Waldman speculating that it might enter into the equation shouldn't have caused this hissy fit of a response. And it is laughable that these critics now want to dismiss his opinion entirely for every other player because of his comment on Bridgewater.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the position that "NFL teams just care about winning," and therefore we should assume that their are no inefficiencies in the way they evaluate and use players, is extremely naive. It's contradicted by everything we know about human behavior, not to mention everything we know about NFL football teams. In fact on this very board a large portion of the content is people deriding NFL teams for making what they view as market-inefficient decisions, which should never happen in an efficient market.

Markets aren't efficient, and most human decisions are made based on all kinds of unconscious biases, with rationale developed after the fact. That's how our brains work.

Hi CalBear,

Can you elaborate on this market inefficiency? Every NFL Team has the fairly singular goal of winning the Super Bowl each year. I don't know of many industries more focused on performance.

Are you saying that teams actually are not as singularly focused on winning to the point they'll look past things they see (rightly or wrongly) as negatives?

J

 

[johnjohn]

Somehow, I think something someone says in a podcast ought to be given a little more leeway than a fully thought out article. He hasn't written an article on it. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking there's a distinction, but it's not as if he wrote on this issue, providing grounds and the like. Really too much was made of it in the original post and frankly maybe now. It's off-season and people are a little bored, manufacturing controversy. It would be good to get back to football.

The podcast represents FBG, it isn't like it was just a random podcast

 

[johnjohn]

I think the position that "NFL teams just care about winning," and therefore we should assume that their are no inefficiencies in the way they evaluate and use players, is extremely naive. It's contradicted by everything we know about human behavior, not to mention everything we know about NFL football teams. In fact on this very board a large portion of the content is people deriding NFL teams for making what they view as market-inefficient decisions, which should never happen in an efficient market.

Markets aren't efficient, and most human decisions are made based on all kinds of unconscious biases, with rationale developed after the fact. That's how our brains work.

Hi CalBear,

Can you elaborate on this market inefficiency? Every NFL Team has the fairly singular goal of winning the Super Bowl each year. I don't know of many industries more focused on performance.

Are you saying that teams actually are not as singularly focused on winning to the point they'll look past things they see (rightly or wrongly) as negatives?

J

Heck, Mike Vick is a black QB who is hated for the stuff he did with dogs, yet he still gets a job, just that fact alone makes it seem like racism is very unlikely to play a factor

 

[cobalt_27]

Somehow, I think something someone says in a podcast ought to be given a little more leeway than a fully thought out article. He hasn't written an article on it. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking there's a distinction, but it's not as if he wrote on this issue, providing grounds and the like. Really too much was made of it in the original post and frankly maybe now. It's off-season and people are a little bored, manufacturing controversy. It would be good to get back to football.

Tell me about it. A guy makes an offhand remark in a podcast which is his opinion and people call him a race hustler and act like he was Riley Cooper using the N word (but not the same people who had a problem with Riley Cooper using the N word).

Unconscious racism exists, people, and has been proven in numerous studies. Will that happen when Bridgewater is drafted? Maybe, maybe not, but Waldman speculating that it might enter into the equation have shouldn't caused this hissy fit of a response. And it is laughable that these critics now want to dismiss his opinion entirely for every other player because of his comment on Bridgewater.

Completely innacurate. At least personally to me. I don't want to dismiss it. It doesn't make any sense. I want him to say more.

 

[Kevrunner]

Hopefully there are not any NFL owners/GMs/Coaches/Scouts placing race in any of their decisions, but if they are, in this day and age, I can't for the life of me see how this wouldn't become public knowledge. The media today would rip them apart I would think. It couldn't go unnoticed in today's world. Information is so easily available. I know the world will never be perfect, there are always going to be people who are racists. No human being should every be judged by their race, hopefully we will get there one day. Could there be a Owner/GM still making decisions based on race, my answer would be no. If your answer is yes, could you please name the person(s), organizations who make you feel this way.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The idea that unconscious bias does not exist in the minds of GMs is untenable. Studies have shown that interviewers are more likely to give favorable reviews of candidates if the interviewer is drinking hot coffee than if he's drinking ice water. Thinking that race (or GMs) would be immune to such biases is pretty unlikely.

Doesn't matter until we know who the "interviewers" are.Lol, coffee vs. ice water? I've done a lot of interview in my time and I can count on one hand the amount of people who have brought anything to drink in with them.

In my experience, it's not unusual for the interviewer or the interviewee to be having coffee (or water or soda).

 

[Chase Stuart]

The idea that unconscious bias does not exist in the minds of GMs is untenable. Studies have shown that interviewers are more likely to give favorable reviews of candidates if the interviewer is drinking hot coffee than if he's drinking ice water. Thinking that race (or GMs) would be immune to such biases is pretty unlikely.

And yet, I'm sure every front office staff that has been in place for more than a year has taken a black guy in the first round, regardless of position. So the unconscious racism isn't sneaking up there, but it is when evaluating QBs? GMs are drafting black guys to lead their defenses, or lead their offensive lines, but unconsciously they have a problem with black players leading their offense?

Sure. It's not that the bias means they won't draft black quarterbacks. It might have no impact at all if the evaluators are self-aware. And the effect is probably small, anyway. But for some GMs, it might make a small impact, and that could effect draft position. There are many biases we all have; for example, I think Blaine Gabbert benefited from the bias that he 'looked' like a QB. He obviously never should have been a high first round pick.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So why are we only discussing race as it applies to Black QBs? Why not include White RB, WR, DB and Black K?

Fans are not GMs, of course, but I have heard lots of fans make pretty clear racially-biased remarks about Decker, both good and bad. I've heard that he's not athletic enough to be a true #1 and is not a super "talent". I've also heard that he was a good signing because he's a high character guy and a hard worker. I've also heard he's the new Wayne Chrebet

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

If anything, that shows why Waldman should not be listened to for anything. The guy misses on players all the time. He has no basis to assume that if the NFL doesn't agree with him the conclusion is racism.

And that's a judgement you are entitled to make. But I would want to list everyone else who "misses" on players all the time: Josh Norris, Gil Brandt (who everyone obviously knows was a long time Dallas Cowboys scout), pretty much every FF ranking site, and the hardcore draftniks that populate these boards (EBF, TD Mills, Xue, and a million others I'm missing).

His basis is his confidence in his player evaluation. If you all are expecting a certain level of certainty then you judge for yourselves on his outcomes. To latch onto the Bridgewater thing is something different. It's political worldview.

Yet, none of those other guys are out there claiming racism if the draft doesn't go the way they think it should.

True, yet that doesn't preclude him from being right (and re: Bridgewater, I'm not arguing he is, though I agree with his broader points).

Recall, Bridgewater was widely thought of as the clear cut #1 QB not too long ago. One bad pro day? Maybe that's enough. Body type, yeah, Ok, legit criticism. Matt Waldman feels differently. So disagree, trust the prevailing winds, that's on the consumer, not the provider.

The indignation is politics, not football.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know about coffee, but there was an experiment done a while ago that showed that, for corporate office jobs, people with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews than people with black-sounding names when their resumes were otherwise identical.

That's far, far different, however, from saying that an NFL GM's draft decisions are likely to be influenced by race. Extrapolating from one to the other is not warranted, IMO.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not to speak for CalBear, but if you want an example of an inefficiency in the NFL draft, the common practice of trading a number one next year for a number two this year seems indefensible on efficiency grounds.

Again, though, to go from there (or anything similar) to racism is unwarranted, IMO.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I don't know about coffee, but there was an experiment done a while ago that showed that, for corporate office jobs, people with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews than people with black-sounding names when their resumes were otherwise identical.

That's far, far different, however, from saying that an NFL GM's draft decisions are likely to be influenced by race. Extrapolating from one to the other is not warranted, IMO.

Why? Is the variable *white sounding name* qualitatively different than *athletic vs cerebral*, dreadlocks vs conservative haircut, brashness vs humility, tattoos vs clean skin, articulate vs weak language skills, white middle class dress vs urban*?

Is the variable *interview for a job* qualitatively different than *draft position*? I don't personally agree that extrapolating in that manner is unwarranted. It"s-at least-reasonable. Of course, as I said earlier, race and culture are not reducible. That seems apparent to me (no offense to Joe, I appreciate his comments to this point earlier in the thread).

 

[Christo]

Do we know "indirect racism" exists in some parts of the corporate world? Yes.

The NFL consists of 32 franchises that are essentially corporations into themselves, would it be surprising to find group think or indirect racism filter through? No.

On the other hand almost each of the 32 has shown past commitment to black QB's, coaches, GM's. Can we say there is one team which never has done such, now or in say the last 20 years?

And we can think of QBs who have unjustly fallen, Aaron Rodgers fell to 28 based on intangibles... but apparently race wasn't one of them. I wonder when "attitude" and manner of speech or maybe one's "entourage" and other common assumptions get attributed to race when they are just... the person.

I think the problem here is a considerable lack of insight into actual concrete examples of where this has actually happened in modern times, the more recent years. Can we look at one example and extrapolate from that?

Right now the "No 1st round QB thread" has maybe 8 mock drafts and in all of them Bridgewater falls no lower than 11, to TEN. If he falls all the way down to 20, and then he becomes an all-pro, is that the only way we can provide grounds for this?

Well this is the gist of the whole matter. And this is why I don't understand the indignation and outrage over Matt Waldman's stance.

His writing is player evaluation. He felt strongly that Bridgewater deserved a certain ranking. He felt that if he was drafted lower it was due to some reason other than talent. Based on the initial premise,and an understanding of cultural dynamics, he drew a reasonable, or at least potential, conclusion.

Be interesting to see the arc of Bridgewater's career.

If anything, that shows why Waldman should not be listened to for anything. The guy misses on players all the time. He has no basis to assume that if the NFL doesn't agree with him the conclusion is racism.

And that's a judgement you are entitled to make. But I would want to list everyone else who "misses" on players all the time: Josh Norris, Gil Brandt (who everyone obviously knows was a long time Dallas Cowboys scout), pretty much every FF ranking site, and the hardcore draftniks that populate these boards (EBF, TD Mills, Xue, and a million others I'm missing).

His basis is his confidence in his player evaluation. If you all are expecting a certain level of certainty then you judge for yourselves on his outcomes. To latch onto the Bridgewater thing is something different. It's political worldview.

Yet, none of those other guys are out there claiming racism if the draft doesn't go the way they think it should.

True, yet that doesn't preclude him from being right (and re: Bridgewater, I'm not arguing he is, though I agree with his broader points).

Recall, Bridgewater was widely thought of as the clear cut #1 QB not too long ago. One bad pro day? Maybe that's enough. Body type, yeah, Ok, legit criticism. Matt Waldman feels differently. So disagree, trust the prevailing winds, that's on the consumer, not the provider.

The indignation is politics, not football.

Indignation? His statement was dumb. He deserves to be called on it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Gordon.

To the points at the end as it relates to Footballguys. I could well be making a big mistake, but I don't really consider stuff like this as it "relates to business".

I've always run this thing as bringing together a pretty loose group of guys I have a ton of respect for. If one of them wants to take a position that isn't popular, I don't look at that as being bad for business. I look at that as Footballguys covering quite a bit of ground and bringing different opinions to the table. I think being honest with our people is always the right call and always best for business. If some of our guys take a position that isn't popular, we'll get through it. I can remember people sending angry emails to me and unsubscribing from Footballguys because I talked positively about Michael Vick the first year after he returned after prison. My opinion was he'd paid his debt to society and it was time to move on. Did that cost me subscribers? Yes. Was it the right move to be honest with the readers? I think so.

I've always operated under the idea of bringing people I think are smart together and letting them do what I think they do best and if we do that, the business takes care of itself. Again, I don't know that's the right way. But it's the way I've tried to do it here.

J

 

[CalBear]

I think the position that "NFL teams just care about winning," and therefore we should assume that their are no inefficiencies in the way they evaluate and use players, is extremely naive. It's contradicted by everything we know about human behavior, not to mention everything we know about NFL football teams. In fact on this very board a large portion of the content is people deriding NFL teams for making what they view as market-inefficient decisions, which should never happen in an efficient market.

Markets aren't efficient, and most human decisions are made based on all kinds of unconscious biases, with rationale developed after the fact. That's how our brains work.

Hi CalBear,

Can you elaborate on this market inefficiency? Every NFL Team has the fairly singular goal of winning the Super Bowl each year. I don't know of many industries more focused on performance.

Are you saying that teams actually are not as singularly focused on winning to the point they'll look past things they see (rightly or wrongly) as negatives?

J

I think the Cleveland Browns are conceptually as focused on improving performance as anyone else. So why do they suck? Because for years and years they have made sub-optimal decisions. Lots of teams do. There are a lot of ways that can manifest, and a lot of different decisions you can make erroneously; racism may or may not be the thing that has caused them to be bad for so long. But anyone who wants to argue that the Browns make optimal decisions has a tough case to prove.

In this specific case, they chose Tim Couch over Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper, which looks like a pretty significant miss for one reason or another.

 

[mbuehner]

This being Footballguys, can I respectfully suggest we try to introduce some statistics into this discussion?

pro-football-reference.com is an awesome resource for draft data. For starters:

Since 1993, there have been 51 QBs taken in the first round. 12 have been black (23.5%), and 39 white.

There have been 13 QBs taken #1 overall, 3 black (23%) and 10 white.

I don't have much of a conclusion to draw from this- compared to the overall population, blacks are overrepresented, compared to the NFL, they are underrepresented. That might be deceptive as well, as there arent as many black college QBs as other positions either.

The trick, I think, would be to attempt to grade drafted QBs based on their college performances, height, etc and see if black QBs are drafted where they grade out.

 

[ghostguy123]

I have not, and probably will not, read any of this thread. I can only imagine it is filled with pur conjecture, nonsense, hyperbole, and idiocy.

Why even start it?

The thoughts going through the person's head who started this thread are likely more racist than NFL decision making.

 

[Dr Oadi]

I have not, and probably will not, read any of this thread. I can only imagine it is filled with pur conjecture, nonsense, hyperbole, and idiocy.

Why even start it?

The thoughts going through the person's head who started this thread are likely more racist than NFL decision making.

Banned

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I think the position that "NFL teams just care about winning," and therefore we should assume that their are no inefficiencies in the way they evaluate and use players, is extremely naive. It's contradicted by everything we know about human behavior, not to mention everything we know about NFL football teams. In fact on this very board a large portion of the content is people deriding NFL teams for making what they view as market-inefficient decisions, which should never happen in an efficient market.

Markets aren't efficient, and most human decisions are made based on all kinds of unconscious biases, with rationale developed after the fact. That's how our brains work.

Hi CalBear,

Can you elaborate on this market inefficiency? Every NFL Team has the fairly singular goal of winning the Super Bowl each year. I don't know of many industries more focused on performance.

Are you saying that teams actually are not as singularly focused on winning to the point they'll look past things they see (rightly or wrongly) as negatives?

J

I think the Cleveland Browns are conceptually as focused on improving performance as anyone else. So why do they suck? Because for years and years they have made sub-optimal decisions. Lots of teams do. There are a lot of ways that can manifest, and a lot of different decisions you can make erroneously; racism may or may not be the thing that has caused them to be bad for so long. But anyone who wants to argue that the Browns make optimal decisions has a tough case to prove.

In this specific case, they chose Tim Couch over Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper, which looks like a pretty significant miss for one reason or another.

Is ranking Tyler Wilson over Geno Smith and EJ Manuel a poor evaluation or a racist evaluation? I'm still looking for one shred of evidence that race should even be discussed here.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Thanks Gordon.

To the points at the end as it relates to Footballguys. I could well be making a big mistake, but I don't really consider stuff like this as it "relates to business".

I've always run this thing as bringing together a pretty loose group of guys I have a ton of respect for. If one of them wants to take a position that isn't popular, I don't look at that as being bad for business. I look at that as Footballguys covering quite a bit of ground and bringing different opinions to the table. I think being honest with our people is always the right call and always best for business. If some of our guys take a position that isn't popular, we'll get through it. I can remember people sending angry emails to me and unsubscribing from Footballguys because I talked positively about Michael Vick the first year after he returned after prison. My opinion was he'd paid his debt to society and it was time to move on. Did that cost me subscribers? Yes. Was it the right move to be honest with the readers? I think so.

I've always operated under the idea of bringing people I think are smart together and letting them do what I think they do best and if we do that, the business takes care of itself. Again, I don't know that's the right way. But it's the way I've tried to do it here.

J

 

[mr fancypants]

The whole racism angle is way overplayed. I think character is something that becomes more in play. You see the recent development with D. Jackson in Philly. Vick's deal with the dogs, Winston (the QB from FSU) on rape charges. It just becomes convenient to throw the race card out there when privileged athletes don't get their way

 

[cobalt_27]

So why are we only discussing race as it applies to Black QBs? Why not include White RB, WR, DB and Black K?

Fans are not GMs, of course, but I have heard lots of fans make pretty clear racially-biased remarks about Decker, both good and bad. I've heard that he's not athletic enough to be a true #1 and is not a super "talent". I've also heard that he was a good signing because he's a high character guy and a hard worker. I've also heard he's the new Wayne Chrebet

What is racially biased about any of this, Chase?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have not, and probably will not, read any of this thread. I can only imagine it is filled with pur conjecture . . .

Yes, why examine the evidence regarding whether it's filled with conjecture when you can simply imagine it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know about coffee, but there was an experiment done a while ago that showed that, for corporate office jobs, people with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews than people with black-sounding names when their resumes were otherwise identical.

That's far, far different, however, from saying that an NFL GM's draft decisions are likely to be influenced by race. Extrapolating from one to the other is not warranted, IMO.

Why?

There are a number of significant differences.

Football teams are generally more racially diverse than corporate offices, so I'd expect there to be less racism in sports (since racism stems from a certain kind of ignorance, and racial diversity cuts down on that ignorance).

Sports performance is usually easier to measure than office-job performance, so it's easier to tell when your hiring policies are inefficient.

GMs' jobs are on the line when they draft stupidly. People making hiring decisions for corporations often have little to lose when their decisions are dumb (in part because of the previous point -- nobody will know). People making hiring decisions might base their decisions on whom they'd want to work down the hall from and hang out with after work; GMs are probably less interested in that kind of stuff and more interested in winning games.

GMs have a lot more to go on than a candidate's name or resume. Subconscious influences probably play bigger roles when there's little other information to go on. Once you personally interview someone, talk to his college coaches about him, watch lots of game film of him, etc., your initial subconscious impressions won't matter as much as when all you have is a one-page resume that is probably pretty similar to the hundreds of others you've got.

Those are just the things that came to me after one minute's reflection. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

 

[Dr Oadi]

I don't know about coffee, but there was an experiment done a while ago that showed that, for corporate office jobs, people with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews than people with black-sounding names when their resumes were otherwise identical.

That's far, far different, however, from saying that an NFL GM's draft decisions are likely to be influenced by race. Extrapolating from one to the other is not warranted, IMO.

Why?

There are a number of significant differences.

Football teams are generally more racially diverse than corporate offices, so I'd expect there to be less racism in sports (since racism stems from a certain kind of ignorance, and racial diversity cuts down on that ignorance).

Sports performance is usually easier to measure than office-job performance, so it's easier to tell when your hiring policies are inefficient.

GMs' jobs are on the line when they draft stupidly. People making hiring decisions for corporations often have little to lose when their decisions are dumb (in part because of the previous point -- nobody will know). People making hiring decisions might base their decisions on whom they'd want to work down the hall from and hang out with after work; GMs are probably less interested in that kind of stuff and more interested in winning games.

GMs have a lot more to go on than a candidate's name or resume. Subconscious influences probably play bigger roles when there's little other information to go on. Once you personally interview someone, talk to his college coaches about him, watch lots of game film of him, etc., your initial subconscious impressions won't matter as much as when all you have is a one-page resume that is probably pretty similar to the hundreds of others you've got.

Those are just the things that came to me after one minute's reflection. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

90% black football team is more racially diverse than 90% white corporate office? I knew diversity was code for non white!

 

[Jersey Jammer]

Thanks Gordon.

To the points at the end as it relates to Footballguys. I could well be making a big mistake, but I don't really consider stuff like this as it "relates to business".

I've always run this thing as bringing together a pretty loose group of guys I have a ton of respect for. If one of them wants to take a position that isn't popular, I don't look at that as being bad for business. I look at that as Footballguys covering quite a bit of ground and bringing different opinions to the table. I think being honest with our people is always the right call and always best for business. If some of our guys take a position that isn't popular, we'll get through it. I can remember people sending angry emails to me and unsubscribing from Footballguys because I talked positively about Michael Vick the first year after he returned after prison. My opinion was he'd paid his debt to society and it was time to move on. Did that cost me subscribers? Yes. Was it the right move to be honest with the readers? I think so.

I've always operated under the idea of bringing people I think are smart together and letting them do what I think they do best and if we do that, the business takes care of itself. Again, I don't know that's the right way. But it's the way I've tried to do it here.

J

Joe, I couldn't agree more that you've got the best staff and FF product out there, and do trust this will get sorted out. And we should all be excellent to each other - but shouldn't this also pertain to your staff? This really doesn't have anything to do with football, it's about us being called racists or associating with them. Here's what he says about where you and I live:

"It’s true that this in-your-face, brand of intolerance and rage still exists in the dark corners of every community of our country".

It's an example of the hyprocisy of people like Waldman who condemn stereotypes every day yet feel totally comfortable stereotyping everyone else - whether it be "racist" GMs who won't draft TB high enough for him or my neighborhood that contains "intolerance and rage".

 

[Jersey Jammer]

When I say "us" in the above post, it's all of us who don't believe TB is a top 10 pick. That would be me, Daniel Jeremiah, probably a lot of FBG staff members, NFL GMs and a huge number of FBG members. Of course the Race Arbiter gives us an "out", stating maybe it's latent, so you're just too stupid to realize it. Is that what you believe, Matt?