This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Wow. This is way off base on both that it defends CalBears position when it's pretty obvious that his whole argument is based on a false assumption and that one can easily defend with rationality and logic the efficiency of trading a future first rounder for a present second rounder in any given year.
Wait, do you disagree that the bolded exists? I'm not agreeing with Waldman that there is a latent racism in the NFL re:drafting players, but I think you've taken far too personal an offense to his comments.
Well Waldman did insinuate those that rank Bridgewater low are racists. Just because racism exists in many dark corners doesn't mean it exists in football evaluations. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary
I live in a small 18 home subdivision that consists of the nicest, sweetest people you'd ever want to meet. There are no raging racists here, I can assure you. You make the same mistake Matt makes. He says "every community". There's no wiggle room. "Every" means 100%. So yes, racism exists. If he had said in "some" communities that would be acceptable. Similiar to the TB comments. If he said something like "it's possible a GM or owner may see drafting a black QB through a race prism" that's also appropriate. But he says "everyone", "all". That includes me and you, brother. He's including all of us in his beliefs. This is a clear example of stereotyping people. Words are important.
He said "every community" not "every small 18 home subdivision".
"Getting?" Been.He said "every community" not "every small 18 home subdivision".
Haven't you heard? You are, you just don't know it. Don't let it get to you, we all are. It's an inherent part of the human condition. You can't help yourself.
If Bridgewater drives like a dolt by going slow in the left lane or not paying attention, I wouldn't draft him either. If that makes me a roadragist, so be it.
There are a number of ways that NFL teams make systematically wrong decisions. They go for it too infrequently on fourth down. They pass too often on third and two. They use surprise onside kicks less often than they should.
Nothing in this world is totally efficient. That's not the point and it has little to do with the discussion. Just because the NFL isn't totally perfect, that does not mean it is racist. Even if there is racism that would have to be defined by the demographic of the user base, which has still never been addressed at all in this thread. The topic is black QBs but what if a real study was done and it showed that black QBs were not devalued because of unintentional bias, racism, and say white CBs are? Are a back GM or evaluator and a white one going to hold the same bias? How about a Latino or Cuban? There is nothing but lazy analysis going on here. It's fine if you want to assume some level of bias to human nature. The problem is we have no guidelines for what the bias is by demographic and who the people making these decisions even are. Personally, for me, I think there is a strong chance that if this bias exists it is mitigated much more at the NFL level and mostly likely at the highest level of all professions. Attaining a place in organizations or roles that are at the top echelons of a field would logically seem to demand this. I mean are we also suggesting that doctors are unintentionally allowing racism and bias to influence their medical decisions and practices? I'd imagine every doctor out there would say no. What about surgeons? How about lawyers?
I'll give a supplemental response.
From my standpoint he didn't attack anyone, he simply made an observation based on his opinion that if Bridgewater drops there would probably be a racial component to it, and while I don't necessarily agree with that opinion, it didn't justify the over-the-top responses calling him a "race hustler" and "race baiter" among other things (and that is just my opinion).
This is what happens when you make yourself a dogmatic slave to statistics. If you carried your logic out to outcomes, games would never have to be played because you would know the scores of every game before they were ever played. That you refuse to recognize completely viable and feasible alternatives does not surprise me.Maurile Tremblay said:
Waldman chose to introduce race into the equation. His position seems clear - if anyone does not agree with his evaluation, race has to be a factor. Even more disagreeable in my opinion, he has then chosen to duck the ensuing discussion, run for cover, and let others cover his ###. If he's going to throw those charges out there, he ought to at least have the fortitude to enjoin in the discussion. That's where the race baiting and race hustling comments come from, because that's exactly the behavior they exhibit.ETA. - maybe Joe has told Waldman not to enjoin the discussion. That would be understandable given that the conversion could get a bit heated and that seems contrary to what is the expected decorum here. If so, that ought to be disclosed. Right now it looks like Waldman threw the grenade in the room and then took off running.squistion said:
Um, did you happen to notice who started this thread? I would think that the OP would have a pretty good idea of what belongs in the SP and what doesn't.
Thanks Squistion. It is a fair question though as this isn't really NFL specific that we normally have here. I made an exception with it being March and given how much attention the topic was receiving.
I don't agree with his position, but based on what he actually said, I don't think the bolded above stated his position. Let alone clearly.
I wonder how this topic would have been viewed, had this thread been started by myself, DSP, or Eminence?
Then why did Matt even introduce race into the discussion? There is no basis to do so.
Yes I noticed who started the thread, and that's the only reason why it flies... Otherwise, this would have been a FFA topic...
I think it's safe to say he introduced race because he thinks that is a cause for the differences that he noted. This kind of discussion of whether he agree with his reasons is great. My point was let's at least respond to his position he actually gave.
Irrelevant until fans start making picks, signing players and deciding contracts.By the way, most Texans fans still get the urge to vomit just typing the name Carr. Biases definitely do exist.
So because trolls and others are drawn to the controversial hot button topics you abandon normal policy of keeping those subjects separate from NFL talk?
Exactly. We talk about everything under the sun about what impacts the draft, from footwork to vision to diet to team philosophies to idiot GMs. Anything under the sun, you name it, and it's discussed here. Waldman drops the race card, a lot of us start having acid flashbacks to the 1980s and prior when race was clearly a relevant factor, a lot of us start scratching our heads, doing a double-take, and so we add this into the mix. Personally, I don't think race plays a relevant role. But, one prominent staffer does, and it seems worth exploring to what extent, if at all, race does factor into GMs and executives' decisions.
Probably locked like the other non nfl related thread.
Thanks Billy. I thought it was worth exploring as I do think it's an interesting intersection of culture and sports.
Shark Pool to me is "General Football Discussion". This topic is much more relevant here than it would be in the FFA and besides that, we're pre-draft / post-combine. There's not much else better to talk about anyway.
I am not sure many people are arguing that he shouldn't have an opinion and say something if it is his opinion...................but when you start saying you have personally seen things and then go on to NOT explain anything, gonna raise some eyebrows
That's a fair point, Guru.
Race, no. Other bias, yes. I know several people who still won't draft Vick. Some people are as petty as to not draft players from their favorite teams rival.
Race? Never. Biases about injuries or which team they play for? See that all the time.
It's a very bad topic ... I think ~90% of the people that posted in the Waldman debacle were disgusted that it was even suggested.Hi bia,I cannot find the this is silly option. Or how about one drek thread deserves another? How the race card jumped the shark of look at me threads in 2014?
The "this is silly" vote would be the one that is "no factor". I don't know that it's a bad topic though as I do think it's interesting to see what people think.
Thanks for being part of the discussion.
J
It took me a couple of years to modify the draft dominator but I've got a race weighting factor sandwiched between fantasy playoff strength of schedule and expected Farmer's Almanac wind condition predictions.
