Matt Waldman: 75% chance Bridgwater falls due to racism (2 Viewers)

[datonn]

I'm not sure where I want to go with this train of thought (after reading Matt's LONG posting). But I feel the need to say that racism in America is not "black and white." It's black, BROWN, and white. Some people say you cannot be a racist unless you have white skin or are in the economic/ruling majority in a society. Tell that to Mexicans coming across our borders (LEGALLY, being lumped in with millions of illegals after their only crime is sharing a similar shade of "brown" skin, a similar color of hair, a similar primary language spoken, or a similar first/last name). Tell that to millions of Muslims who, after 9/11, immediately all became suspected "secret" members of al Qaeda to millions of people with white, black, and/or brown skin.

Racism is still very prevalent in our society...no doubt! Matt's 100% correct on that point. What frustrates me, however, is how the victims of racism on one hand too-often get a free pass from also being the victimizer (being racist/prejudice toward others in our society). If my Dad was a terrible father to me, that doesn't give me license to be a terrible father to my own kids. YES, it sucks how I was treated, and YES, it's harder for me to get on the straight and narrow without having a positive role model growing up. But I own my own actions. So if I turn around and treat my own kids like crap, that's on me...not my Dad. Just like if people have faced discrimination their whole life. That doesn't give folks license or an excuse to take things out on people named "Garcia" or "Rodriguez," or treat everyone with suspicion solely because they happen to wear a Burqa or worship in a mosque.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Where is the qualification? Where is the I know many if not most are not racist caveat? There is none, the message is "hey, I know better" you are all blatantly racist or your just too damn stupid to realize you are at least a little racist.

I think you're reading stuff into it that's not there. (And I think that's happened a lot in this thread. JMHO.) You may also be reading stuff out of it that is there. You ask where the qualification is, for example, right after quoting a qualification pretty similar to the one you seem to be asking for: "It doesn't happen everywhere or all the time."

ETA: I respect the fact that you quoted his words in your response, which shows that you're not trying to misrepresent him. But the words you quoted do not say that everyone's a racist. They say that, based on his own experience, racism, often unintentional, happens enough to matter. "Enough to matter" is quite a bit different from how you've paraphrased him above, IMO.

 

[John 14:6]

Some people say you cannot be a racist unless you have white skin or are in the economic/ruling majority in a society.

Yeah, as a white man married to a black woman, I've seen more racism from black people than white. Not much overall, but in my experience if I had to say which group of people were more disturbed by our relationship, it would be a lot more black people.

 

[BassNBrew]

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

I think I got this figured out now…there are three type of franchises.

1. Poorly run franchises who would draft a black QB in the top ten. You would think they are non-racist, but they really are since they drafted a black running QB. Carolina, Wash

2. Well run franchises who draft black running QBs in the second round. They may be racist because they didn't take the black running QB in the first round or they may not be racist and just benefiting from the poorly run franchises who passed on these QBs. These poorly run franchises could be racist, but since they actually passed on a black running QB they are exempt from being called racist. Seattle, San Fran

3. Extremely poorly run franchises who draft a non-running black QB in the top ten. You would think these franchises aren't racist, but in reality the are racist. They are so poorly run they can properly act on their racism so they actually end up drafting the black non-running QB. Oakland

 

[datonn]

Some people say you cannot be a racist unless you have white skin or are in the economic/ruling majority in a society.

Yeah, as a white man married to a black woman, I've seen more racism from black people than white. Not much overall, but in my experience if I had to say which group of people were more disturbed by our relationship, it would be a lot more black people.

I married another pasty-white German (hehe), but I dated a Japanese girl in college (not Japanese-American...her father was the Japanese ambassador to the US), and a Persian woman shortly before I met my wife. And I can totally see what you're driving at. People in their families or of a similar ethnic background almost looking at me with disgust. As though I was "stealing one of theirs." I was just your average man with your average man-crush on two beautiful, smart, funny women. "Red and yellow, black and white....they are [all] beautiful in my sight..." But because I was a "white guy?" Folks had issues with that. More non-white folks than white, IIRC.

I remember being in the UAE a couple years ago too. We were assigned a SMOKING-hot "handler" to drive us around to meetings and keep us entertained between said meetings. O-M-G was that woman absolutely, mind-blowingly gorgeous! But because an American suit was walking around with said Syrian hottie, I was getting lots of visual darts flashed at me. As though I was "corrupting" one of "their" women. (?) It was all strictly business. But people saw us together, men and women, and you'd think I had committed murder with the way some people looked at me. Of course, it didn't help that she was wearing short skirts and was practically falling out of her top (while at least a few other women were walking by in Burqas). But I wanted to yell "I didn't do it, don't blame me...she was dressed that way when I got here and met her for the first time!!!"

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Where is the qualification? Where is the I know many if not most are not racist caveat? There is none, the message is "hey, I know better" you are all blatantly racist or your just too damn stupid to realize you are at least a little racist.

I think you're reading stuff into it that's not there. (And I think that's happened a lot in this thread. JMHO.) You may also be reading stuff out of it that is there. You ask where the qualification is, for example, right after quoting a qualification pretty similar to the one you seem to be asking for: "It doesn't happen everywhere or all the time."

ETA: I respect the fact that you quoted his words in your response, which shows that you're not trying to misrepresent him. But the words you quoted do not say that everyone's a racist. They say that, based on his own experience, racism, often unintentional, happens enough to matter. "Enough to matter" is quite a bit different from how you've paraphrased him above, IMO.

Fair enough.

I have tried not to misconstrue what Matt said or vilify him for having an opinion on what is clearly a sensitive subject. I am tired (as I think many are) of being labelled a racist or misogynist because of my gender, race or political affiliation. I'm not, and I think we have reached the point where many of us are done being told we are inherently racist, or more importantly that our children owe anyone anything because they were born white.

I grew up poor, not dirt poor, but poor. I am far from rich, but I have worked hard and done ok, I know many that I grew up with that didn't work hard and they are not doing ok. The over whelming majority of these people are non black. I could continue, but I'm going to stop there....

Life is hard and brutally cruel at times for everyone, deal with it; the well intentioned, well meaning enlightened politics of victimhood empowers politicians while it divides and tears this country apart. I think Matts comments touched a nerve because many of us feel we are being told we are something we are not by well meaning people who confuse education with intelligence and truly believe they are smarter than everyone else.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

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

BOOM.

"Lo and behold I found a Tweet that confirms my bias!"

Again, Cam Newton, RGIII, Jamarcus Russell, x 50 more examples of NFL teams not having a problem with a black face of the franchise.

 

[cstu]

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

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

BOOM.

"Lo and behold I found a Tweet that confirms my bias!"

Again, Cam Newton, RGIII, Jamarcus Russell, x 50 more examples of NFL teams not having a problem with a black face of the franchise.

The owner of the Panthers did have a problem with Cam as the face of his franchise and made him agree not to get tattoos or piercing.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

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

BOOM.

"Lo and behold I found a Tweet that confirms my bias!"

Again, Cam Newton, RGIII, Jamarcus Russell, x 50 more examples of NFL teams not having a problem with a black face of the franchise.

The owner of the Panthers did have a problem with Cam as the face of his franchise and made him agree not to get tattoos or piercing.

I won't even ask how you know that it was because Cam was back and instead focus on the fact that it had no impact on Cam's draft status, which is what Waldman is saying about TB.

 

[cstu]

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

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

BOOM.

"Lo and behold I found a Tweet that confirms my bias!"

Again, Cam Newton, RGIII, Jamarcus Russell, x 50 more examples of NFL teams not having a problem with a black face of the franchise.

The owner of the Panthers did have a problem with Cam as the face of his franchise and made him agree not to get tattoos or piercing.

I won't even ask how you know that it was because Cam was back and instead focus on the fact that it had no impact on Cam's draft status, which is what Waldman is saying about TB.

I've never heard of another QB being told to be tattoo-free.

Here's was Richardson said:

Richardson, who said that Newton “was dressed perfectly” for their meeting, was blunt. “I said, ‘Do you have any tattoos?’” Richardson told Rose. “He said, ‘No, sir. I don’t have any.’ I said, ‘Do you have any piercings?’ He said, ‘No, sir. I don’t have any.’ I said, ‘We want to keep it that way.’ . . . .

“We want to keep no tattoos, no piercings, and I think you’ve got a very nice haircut.”

This same owner had no problem with this guy on his team.

 

[ICON211]

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

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

BOOM.

"Lo and behold I found a Tweet that confirms my bias!"

Again, Cam Newton, RGIII, Jamarcus Russell, x 50 more examples of NFL teams not having a problem with a black face of the franchise.

The owner of the Panthers did have a problem with Cam as the face of his franchise and made him agree not to get tattoos or piercing.

I won't even ask how you know that it was because Cam was back and instead focus on the fact that it had no impact on Cam's draft status, which is what Waldman is saying about TB.

I've never heard of another QB being told to be tattoo-free.

Here's was Richardson said:

Richardson, who said that Newton “was dressed perfectly” for their meeting, was blunt. “I said, ‘Do you have any tattoos?’” Richardson told Rose. “He said, ‘No, sir. I don’t have any.’ I said, ‘Do you have any piercings?’ He said, ‘No, sir. I don’t have any.’ I said, ‘We want to keep it that way.’ . . . .

“We want to keep no tattoos, no piercings, and I think you’ve got a very nice haircut.”

This same owner had no problem with this guy on his team.

Cam Newton was drafted 1. The debate is not if racism exists or not it is if it impacts draft position.

 

[CapnJB]

I was just your average man with your average man-crush on two beautiful, smart, funny women.

You're doing it wrong.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Where is the qualification? Where is the I know many if not most are not racist caveat? There is none, the message is "hey, I know better" you are all blatantly racist or your just too damn stupid to realize you are at least a little racist.

I think you're reading stuff into it that's not there. (And I think that's happened a lot in this thread. JMHO.) You may also be reading stuff out of it that is there. You ask where the qualification is, for example, right after quoting a qualification pretty similar to the one you seem to be asking for: "It doesn't happen everywhere or all the time."

ETA: I respect the fact that you quoted his words in your response, which shows that you're not trying to misrepresent him. But the words you quoted do not say that everyone's a racist. They say that, based on his own experience, racism, often unintentional, happens enough to matter. "Enough to matter" is quite a bit different from how you've paraphrased him above, IMO.

Waldman hasn't presented one lick of evidence that racism matters during the NFL draft. He's just trying his hardest to mix his social views into his football world. And that you are telling people that they basically can't read. C'mon man. That's as insulting as people saying Waldman can't write.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I'll jump back in one time only to say how glad I am to see Waldman finally engage in this thread. I don't know if it was his decision or had some corporate influence applied, but either way it's long overdue and welcome IMO. I think a lot of the garbage posts could have been eliminated had it happened sooner, but better late than never. Kudos to Waldman that he's here to own his remarks and position.

After I read his lengthy explanation, I firmly believe he is guilty of the classic flaw of coming to a conclusion and then bending information to support it. We're seeing a lot of that in recent years. I also agree that a lot of his personal experiences have no bearing whatsoever and shouldn't have any bearing when making an evaluation of the magnitude that he did.

A typical flaw that we often see in working backwards from a predetermined conclusion is that the person is perfectly willing to ignore data sets and facts that don't fit their conclusion. Waldman is especially guilty of this.

3 of the top. 4 QBs playing in the league right now - Brady, Manning, Rodgers, and Brees - fell below what their elite status warranted in the draft. One of them almost fell completely out of the draft. They are all white. That shows us exactly how precarious the QB evaluation standards are in the NFL.

Over the past 3 years, 4 of the first 6 QBs selected are black. Of the last 5 first picks in the entire draft teams have used on QBs, 2 of them are black. Since 2006, of the top 3 picks in the entire draft 8 of the picks were used on QBs and of those 8, 4 are black. That shows us clearly that there is absolutely no bias of skin color when selecting QBs high in the draft - just that the teams are choosing the player they think will be the best franchise QB on the board. Keep going back. Vick went 1.01 in 2001. In 1999 2 of the top 3 picks in the entire draft are black QBs.

Instead the person substitutes personal experience and "things they've heard exclusively" as a substitute for actual data. Those anecdotal accounts hold more weight for them than the facts do, because they support the claim and most probably cannot be refuted. That doesn't mean they have value on the argument.

The evidence simply does not support Waldman's conclusion that if Bridgewater drops it is most probably due to racism. There are all sorts of reasons for QBs to drop - some of the best in the game right now did and it had nothing to do with skin color. There is also literally no support that teams will not risk a high pick on a QB simply because he is black. Look at the facts.

Then we see another classic flaw of working backwards from a predetermined conclusion, which is that as the argument becomes overtly unsupportable, the conclusion changes. The person modifies and qualifies their position in an increasing narrow way in an effort to find a smaller subset or more vague definition for which their conclusion fits.

We're seeing all of the above in this discussion. It's really a shame because I am absolutely certain that Waldman busts his tail in creating his rookie portfolio, and then interjecting his very poorly supported bias really impeaches his credibility.

In any case, for what it is worth I for one am very glad that Waldman stepped up - regardless of what I think of his conclusion. Very hearty congrats on doing so.

 

[B-Deep]

I appreciate Waldman coming in here and expanding on his thoughts. obviously not everyone will agree, and i do not think he is obliged to stay here and debate, but I think he was much clearer in what made him make the comments

Now, the question is can those who agree and disagree conduct a meaningful but cordial debate on the topic.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

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

BOOM.

"Lo and behold I found a Tweet that confirms my bias!"

Again, Cam Newton, RGIII, Jamarcus Russell, x 50 more examples of NFL teams not having a problem with a black face of the franchise.

The owner of the Panthers did have a problem with Cam as the face of his franchise and made him agree not to get tattoos or piercing.

I won't even ask how you know that it was because Cam was back and instead focus on the fact that it had no impact on Cam's draft status, which is what Waldman is saying about TB.

I've never heard of another QB being told to be tattoo-free.

Here's was Richardson said:

Richardson, who said that Newton “was dressed perfectly” for their meeting, was blunt. “I said, ‘Do you have any tattoos?’” Richardson told Rose. “He said, ‘No, sir. I don’t have any.’ I said, ‘Do you have any piercings?’ He said, ‘No, sir. I don’t have any.’ I said, ‘We want to keep it that way.’ . . . .

“We want to keep no tattoos, no piercings, and I think you’ve got a very nice haircut.”

This same owner had no problem with this guy on his team.

This must be the story of how Cam Newton fell to the 5th round.

 

[B-Deep]

When Richardson made those comments there was a lot of discussion about them being racist or racially inflammatory, Cam tried to quell that talk if I recall

I think those comments were way out of line, and IMO there was a racial tint to them

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

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

BOOM.

I really think this thread is 12 pages past anything new but maybe this is new.

I would say just look at what Mayock said.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000345760/article/mayock-bridgewaters-ability-to-be-face-of-franchise-in-question

First of all this is what he said:

Number two, when you draft a quarterback in the first round you expect him to be the face of your franchise, you expect him to embrace the moment. I think people had some concerns about whether or not this young man is ready to step up and be the face of a franchise.

The NFL writeup by Mike Fischer puts this down to meaning TB has a calm, reserved demeanor:

While debate has intensified regarding his ability to be an NFL quarterback, this is one of the first time we've heard teams question him being the face of a franchise. For anybody who followed his career in college, that would probably be a point of contention with NFL teams who think that. Though Bridgewater comes off a bit reserved in interviews, his calm demeanor shouldn't overshadow his ability to lead a program.

I'm kind of curious if Matt's tweet means he thinks Mayock is falling into the alleged mindset or if it reaffirms that coaches have it. Maybe the latter, maybe both.

Also, I'm not sure if "embrace the moment" or "calm" or "reserved" are the racial code words that people associate with institutional or indirect racism.

Finally, the host was Charles Davis, who is "black," and he didn't raise an eyebrow, ask a follow-up, even act surprised or offended at the comment. Meanwhile in the podcast Matt did not exactly elaborate at first either. If you listen to it, at the very beginning of the discussion on this issue he originally put Manziel in with TB in terms of guys who might fall. It was only after he was prodded by one of the other hosts as to TB only (making a comment or two about who would be invited to a country club) did he proceed to discuss this theory at length. He never went on to discuss Manziel.

Mayock also goes on about the pro day being the big factor in TB's fall; then again one of the hosts (I think) raises the past history of Jamarcus Russell's pro day as the main factor as to why he skyrocketed to No. 1. Maybe that was a subconscious reference to cover the other issue, but then again even if Russell had had a Montanaesque career in numbers he would have been a horrible "face of the franchise" given his personal qualities. Then again those personal qualities were a big part of his failure as a pro. But then they were an entirely different sort than "calm" or "reserved" or "not embracing the moment". Maybe the latter is subtle subtext for "not a leader," but to me qualifying someone as a future "face of the franchise" means he is not a future likely local and national pr and endorsement magnet. He's not a "personality"; maybe the opposite example of this is Mark Sanchez who had no business going in the top 10 but gosh he sure landed some magazine covers (and maybe that was more important to the NYJ than other teams).

OTOOH, Matt said this a few posts up:

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

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

I think the conversation has gone on too long on this, as opinions are getting milled, but the tweet is new, and now we have Mayock's opinion to compare, but does it have the same derivation, implication or meaning as Matt's? I don't know.

(Again, huge fan of Matt's writing here and I thank him for all the enjoyable reading and help he's provided me in FF).

 

[B-Deep]

I personally think the pro day killed this kid more than any unintentional racism. I think everyone rocks their pro day and when he did not no one knew what to make of it, but they knew it had to be bad.

BUT, the one point that Waldman made about pocket passers is an interesting one. However, my question is that related to racism (intentional or otherwise) in the NFL, or down the chain?

How many dark skinned pocket passers have there been available to draft?
I think maybe at the NCAA or even lower levels African Americans are not encouraged to go into the QB position like white kids are. The same might be true of white kids not being pushed into RB.

So I think racism (likely more unintentional) does deeply impact football, however i am tend to disagree that in this case it is a large factor. I am, however, open to Matt's ideas and do not think they are ridiculous or without merit. Well intentioned people can disagree on these sort of things without either side being a racist or a race baiter.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

When Richardson made those comments there was a lot of discussion about them being racist or racially inflammatory, Cam tried to quell that talk if I recall

I think those comments were way out of line, and IMO there was a racial tint to them

Everything here has been repeated a hundred times, so I don't feel bad about doing the same. I don't think anyone here believes there is no racism in the NFL. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about racism causing a player to fall. It didn't happen with Cam. Since not only did he not fall and Richardson is probably a racist hick, it would be a better example of how racism doesn't cause players to fall.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I applaud Matt for having the stones to say what he feels. Kudos Matt

I boo all of you who don't have the capacity to look past your noses. You are like the little kid who can't seem to grasp that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. You just keep trying to ram it in there.

Matt answered your questions. They aren't the answers you wanted, so you just keep beating your drums.

I bought the RSP in years past, missed a few, then bought it again this year. After this thread started. There is no instance in the 2014 RSP where any indication of "racial bias" influenced his writing. Bridgewater is his #1 QB. The fact that he believes "subconscious racial bias might influence a NFL front office when considering drafting the next face of their franchise" didn't preclude him from ranking Bridgewater the #1 QB in his analysis. If recent reports are true, Bridgewater is indeed being "nitpicked" on a variety of "qualifications to be a franchise QB" by many NFL front offices right now. Is this "nitpicking" a direct result of this "subconscious racial bias?" Possibly. Possibly not. We just don't know.

I think Matt is right. I also think most of you complaining that there is no proof just don't want to believe that he may be right. Unfortunately there is really no way to prove he is right at this point in time. There may never come a point in time where he is proven right.

His player analysis is one thing. What he believes front offices might do to determine the selection of their next franchise QB is another. These are two very different and distinct things. Neither crosses paths.

Matt's belief that "subconscious racial bias" still exists in the greatest sport on earth will not stop me from purchasing his RSP in future years. That belief does not appear in his analysis of hundreds of possible future NFL players.

Rody

 

[B-Deep]

When Richardson made those comments there was a lot of discussion about them being racist or racially inflammatory, Cam tried to quell that talk if I recall

I think those comments were way out of line, and IMO there was a racial tint to them

Everything here has been repeated a hundred times, so I don't feel bad about doing the same. I don't think anyone here believes there is no racism in the NFL. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about racism causing a player to fall. It didn't happen with Cam. Since not only did he not fall and Richardson is probably a racist hick, it would be a better example of how racism doesn't cause players to fall.

understood

but one could argue Cam's talent obviously outweighed the racism, and had his talent been a tad less perhaps the owner just says pass on him

hard to say as it is pure speculation

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I applaud Matt for having the stones to say what he feels. Kudos Matt

I boo all of you who don't have the capacity to look past your noses. You are like the little kid who can't seem to grasp that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. You just keep trying to ram it in there.

Matt answered your questions. They aren't the answers you wanted, so you just keep beating your drums.

Rody

 

[Pickle Rody]

I applaud Matt for having the stones to say what he feels. Kudos Matt

I boo all of you who don't have the capacity to look past your noses. You are like the little kid who can't seem to grasp that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. You just keep trying to ram it in there.

Matt answered your questions. They aren't the answers you wanted, so you just keep beating your drums.

Rody

It is my opinion. I am permitted to express them here, as are you. I feel sad for you that you think my opinion is funny, but oh well. I find it interesting that you chose to omit the rest of my post and not comment on those statements.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I applaud Matt for having the stones to say what he feels. Kudos Matt

I boo all of you who don't have the capacity to look past your noses. You are like the little kid who can't seem to grasp that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. You just keep trying to ram it in there.

Matt answered your questions. They aren't the answers you wanted, so you just keep beating your drums.

Rody

It is my opinion. I am permitted to express them here, as are you. I feel sad for you that you think my opinion is funny, but oh well. I find it interesting that you chose to omit the rest of my post and not comment on those statements.

I find it funny that you are attacking people that disagree with Matt and you instead of debating their opinions.

Matt made his comments. He's not getting the support he desires so he keeps beating his drums.

 

[Cato]

It could be said that Bridgewater is being nit-picked as some team picking in the teens will hope he drops. (pre-draft smoke, we're in the month of lies, right?)

It could be said Bridgewater might drop due to his poor pro day.

It could be said Bridgewater's demeanor is perceived as too meek.

It could be Bridgewater may not be perceived as "smart" enough from his Wonderlic score, to play as a pocket passer.

It could be Bridgewater might drop as he is too small, his hands are too small. He needs to wear gloves a la Kurt Warner.

It could be Bridgewater might drop to where his actual talent level merits.

It could be he drops for other reason all together.

To argue a player's draft position is a function of bias is a hard sell, whether or not it exists.

If however a player were being asked

Inappropriate questions during interviews. (see Dez Bryant, Jeff Ireland, etc.)

Or if the player were being seemingly inappropriately scrutinized. See Cam Newton, tattoos, "smile analysis". Maybe those are more inappropriate, and may come from a place of bias. Perhaps all potential draftees are asked inappropriate questions, though, what does the larger population show here?

Treatment of the player during the draft process can be assessed, for bias. Where a player is drafted is so multi-factorial, I don't think one can imply bias exists or prove that it does.

Unless there is some sort of poor treatment of the player, we're debating something which may or may not exist, and therefore is probably in the eye of the beholder.

I would hope players are chosen on ability, simply in the draft, if they are not, I have no idea how one would demonstrate this? (Russell Wilson in the 3rd round... bias? well no he's too short vs the QB prototype. Toby Gerhart in the 2nd round.. bias? well no, he runs a 4.6 or whatever it was.) It's not a provable item outside of how teams are treating players.

Draft position is NOT a good metric in this discussion, though quantifying treatment of players of different demographics vs the larger population set, is probably more indicative. I don't think draft position can show you anything at all.

 

[Kevrunner]

We all have opinions, my opinion is that no NFL owner, GM, coach, will let a player fall in the draft due to the color of their skin in today's NFL. But if it happens, I sure hope who is making the accusations will point us to the person(s) who are doing this and I am sure they will receive the same treatment that Donald Sterling just received.

 

[Doug B]

Also, I'm not sure if "embrace the moment" or "calm" or "reserved" are the racial code words that people associate with institutional or indirect racism.

Agreed. And furthermore, there is a logical leap made when it's asserted that "questionable ability to be the face of a franchise" and "lacking CEO qualities" are taken to be transparent code words for "dark-skinned African-American". Both gravitas and person-to-person charisma are present in people of all types -- and on the flip side, it's very possible that any given dark-skinned man may legitimately be lacking in both qualities (or have difficulty expressing them in an interview setting)..

Just spitballing here ... but maybe Bridgewater is the type to flub his lines in rehearsals, but then shines once the curtain goes up for real. A personality thing, not a skin-color thing.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I applaud Matt for having the stones to say what he feels. Kudos Matt

I boo all of you who don't have the capacity to look past your noses. You are like the little kid who can't seem to grasp that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. You just keep trying to ram it in there.

Matt answered your questions. They aren't the answers you wanted, so you just keep beating your drums.

Rody

It is my opinion. I am permitted to express them here, as are you. I feel sad for you that you think my opinion is funny, but oh well. I find it interesting that you chose to omit the rest of my post and not comment on those statements.

I found your cliche to thought ratio to be way too high.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I applaud Matt for having the stones to say what he feels. Kudos Matt

I boo all of you who don't have the capacity to look past your noses. You are like the little kid who can't seem to grasp that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. You just keep trying to ram it in there.

Matt answered your questions. They aren't the answers you wanted, so you just keep beating your drums.

Rody

It is my opinion. I am permitted to express them here, as are you. I feel sad for you that you think my opinion is funny, but oh well. I find it interesting that you chose to omit the rest of my post and not comment on those statements.

I find it funny that you are attacking people that disagree with Matt and you instead of debating their opinions.

Matt made his comments. He's not getting the support he desires so he keeps beating his drums.

Am I attacking people? Seriously, I didn't think I was. I apologize to anyone who felt I was attacking them. I felt I was making an observation about how I thought most peoples minds were still closed and unwilling to look at things differently. I used a very simple analogy.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting things that were posted in here. I like to believe that I have an open mind and that I try to put myself in others shoes when opinions differ. It is quite possible that I don't do this very well.

I don't see Matt's responses as anything other than trying to clarify his point so that others could possibly understand what he was saying. Isn't that what everyone was asking for?....that Matt should come in here to clarify (or back up) his claims? Now he has, and suddenly he's beating his drums because he's getting no support? I'm pretty sure he didn't come back to this thread to drum up support for his feelings. He returned to clarify his position because that's what most folks were demanding. He did that.

I do not want to debate with people who are unwilling to open their minds. It's like banging my head against a wall repeatedly and expecting a different result other than a concussion each time.

I'm not naive enough to think that the subconscious racial bias Matt speaks of does not exist at the highest levels of NFL ownership and management, still to this day. It's been proven to exist in the past and I'm not inclined to believe it has been totally eradicated from the present. I agree with Matt. I support his statements because I believe they have merit. I understand what he's saying. I could not have expressed them any better so that's another reason I will not debate.

The only conclusion I can come to, when I keep reading the same arguments from the same posters, is that they must have closed minds. They didn't really hear what Matt was saying or are completely ignoring the premise for his statement or both.

Laugh all you want, but that is the majority of what I see/read in this thread. I felt the urge to comment on my observations, so I did. As I stated, anyone is free to disagree.

 

[BassNBrew]

I applaud Matt for having the stones to say what he feels. Kudos Matt

I boo all of you who don't have the capacity to look past your noses. You are like the little kid who can't seem to grasp that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. You just keep trying to ram it in there.

Matt answered your questions. They aren't the answers you wanted, so you just keep beating your drums.

I bought the RSP in years past, missed a few, then bought it again this year. After this thread started. There is no instance in the 2014 RSP where any indication of "racial bias" influenced his writing. Bridgewater is his #1 QB. The fact that he believes "subconscious racial bias might influence a NFL front office when considering drafting the next face of their franchise" didn't preclude him from ranking Bridgewater the #1 QB in his analysis. If recent reports are true, Bridgewater is indeed being "nitpicked" on a variety of "qualifications to be a franchise QB" by many NFL front offices right now. Is this "nitpicking" a direct result of this "subconscious racial bias?" Possibly. Possibly not. We just don't know.

I think Matt is right. I also think most of you complaining that there is no proof just don't want to believe that he may be right. Unfortunately there is really no way to prove he is right at this point in time. There may never come a point in time where he is proven right.

His player analysis is one thing. What he believes front offices might do to determine the selection of their next franchise QB is another. These are two very different and distinct things. Neither crosses paths.

Matt's belief that "subconscious racial bias" still exists in the greatest sport on earth will not stop me from purchasing his RSP in future years. That belief does not appear in his analysis of hundreds of possible future NFL players.

Rody

So you boo us and applaud Matt. Many of us are beginning facts that counter his argument. You admit that you don't have any proof but still support his position.

Matt may have attempted to answer our questions, but he failed to accomplish this. I defeated his first two or three arguments and his remaining arguments about his life experience in White America don't apply.

Not sure if you signed up for the SSLs, but check out the mock draft forum is you want in.

 

[BassNBrew]

Matt should probably avoid twitter and stick to forums where he can fully explain his thoughts. His tweet about Mayock can be construed to mean Mayock is racist or Mayock is saying NFL GMs are racist. I suspect that if Mayock was reading this thread he wouldn't be too happy with Matt dragging him into this conversation by snipping one line from a quote.

 

[Pickle Rody]

So you boo us and applaud Matt. Many of us are beginning facts that counter his argument. You admit that you don't have any proof but still support his position.

Matt may have attempted to answer our questions, but he failed to accomplish this. I defeated his first two or three arguments and his remaining arguments about his life experience in White America don't apply.

Not sure if you signed up for the SSLs, but check out the mock draft forum is you want in.

I don't feel that the facts others are bringing up to counter Matt's argument bring any finality to it. They are just examples where Matt's beliefs do not apply. I don't think that's the end-all of it. I believe there still exists a subconscious racial bias within some NFL teams ownerships and managements. I cannot prove that it exists to anyone's satisfaction, I am sure. Folks seem to be looking for a specific example to be trotted out as proof. That's not gonna happen, and you guys know that.

Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

 

[ICON211]

So you boo us and applaud Matt. Many of us are beginning facts that counter his argument. You admit that you don't have any proof but still support his position.

Matt may have attempted to answer our questions, but he failed to accomplish this. I defeated his first two or three arguments and his remaining arguments about his life experience in White America don't apply.

Not sure if you signed up for the SSLs, but check out the mock draft forum is you want in.

I don't feel that the facts others are bringing up to counter Matt's argument bring any finality to it. They are just examples where Matt's beliefs do not apply. I don't think that's the end-all of it. I believe there still exists a subconscious racial bias within some NFL teams ownerships and managements. I cannot prove that it exists to anyone's satisfaction, I am sure. Folks seem to be looking for a specific example to be trotted out as proof. That's not gonna happen, and you guys know that.

Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

But there are plenty of examples to counter that argument. This is not about if racism or subconscious racism exists. This is about if it impacts draft position of black QBs.......uh I mean non-running dark skinned black QBs.

 

[Bronco Billy]

So you boo us and applaud Matt. Many of us are beginning facts that counter his argument. You admit that you don't have any proof but still support his position.

Matt may have attempted to answer our questions, but he failed to accomplish this. I defeated his first two or three arguments and his remaining arguments about his life experience in White America don't apply.

Not sure if you signed up for the SSLs, but check out the mock draft forum is you want in.

I don't feel that the facts others are bringing up to counter Matt's argument bring any finality to it. They are just examples where Matt's beliefs do not apply. I don't think that's the end-all of it. I believe there still exists a subconscious racial bias within some NFL teams ownerships and managements. I cannot prove that it exists to anyone's satisfaction, I am sure. Folks seem to be looking for a specific example to be trotted out as proof. That's not gonna happen, and you guys know that.Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

So you're completely comfortable labeling people as racists while admitting you have nothing to support your notions? And you willingly ignore documented facts like the ones I posted over the current controversy that would strongly contradict your line of thinking?

That's disturbing. Especially since you consider yourself open minded and accuse others of being closed minded.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

So you boo us and applaud Matt. Many of us are beginning facts that counter his argument. You admit that you don't have any proof but still support his position.

Matt may have attempted to answer our questions, but he failed to accomplish this. I defeated his first two or three arguments and his remaining arguments about his life experience in White America don't apply.

Not sure if you signed up for the SSLs, but check out the mock draft forum is you want in.

I don't feel that the facts others are bringing up to counter Matt's argument bring any finality to it. They are just examples where Matt's beliefs do not apply. I don't think that's the end-all of it. I believe there still exists a subconscious racial bias within some NFL teams ownerships and managements. I cannot prove that it exists to anyone's satisfaction, I am sure. Folks seem to be looking for a specific example to be trotted out as proof. That's not gonna happen, and you guys know that.

Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

But there are plenty of examples to counter that argument. This is not about if racism or subconscious racism exists. This is about if it impacts draft position of black QBs.......uh I mean non-running dark skinned black QBs.

I noticed this earlier. What's up with the dark skinned black QBs? Is there someone he is excluding because his skin is light(er)?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

The title of the thread is "75% chance Bridgewater falls due to racism". Draft position isn't subconscious, it's pretty easy to measure.

 

[yellowdog]

I find Waldman's tweets trying to justify his position just as egregious as his statement in the podcast. I would like to see him explain how they are remotely related to his stance.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I thought this discussion was about whether subconscious racial bias could possibly be one of the reasons Teddy Bridgewater might fall in the draft. I think it can. Will it be one of those reasons if he falls? I don't know, but I'm willing to concede that it might be. Those who say it definitely won't be one of those reasons can't prove that either. Why couldn't it be one of the reasons Bridgewater falls? If folks admit that subconscious racial bias exists (as you say, it's not a debate about that) then why couldn't it be one of the reasons he falls?

If folks claim that subconscious racial bias does not exist, and that it will have no bearing whatsoever if he falls, because it does not exist, then I believe those folks have closed minds.

 

[Pickle Rody]

So you're completely comfortable labeling people as racists while admitting you have nothing to support your notions? And you willingly ignore documented facts like the ones I posted over the current controversy that would strongly contradict your line of thinking?That's disturbing. Especially since you consider yourself open minded and accuse others of being closed minded.

As I admitted earlier, I may not be very good at it.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I thought this discussion was about whether subconscious racial bias could possibly be one of the reasons Teddy Bridgewater might fall in the draft. I think it can. Will it be one of those reasons if he falls? I don't know, but I'm willing to concede that it might be. Those who say it definitely won't be one of those reasons can't prove that either. Why couldn't it be one of the reasons Bridgewater falls? If folks admit that subconscious racial bias exists (as you say, it's not a debate about that) then why couldn't it be one of the reasons he falls?

If folks claim that subconscious racial bias does not exist, and that it will have no bearing whatsoever if he falls, because it does not exist, then I believe those folks have closed minds.

It would be great if you could point to a trend or some other numbers that support this theory before you start calling people closed minded. I'm a liberal person. I'm as anti-'murcan as it gets. I know racism exists. I am (statistically speaking) sure it exists in some NFL GMs. What I am skeptical of is if it is manifests in today's NFL draft, which is a major topic of this thread. I'd just like to see some kind of real support to this besides "I know people" and "I have experience in an unrelated field", which so far is what the support is.

Everyone agrees that racist people exist. We don't need to try to re-prove the Earth is round either.

 

[Doug B]

Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

That's problematic, though, because "subconcious racism" can therefore be invoked without accountability. If you can't prove it or disprove it, what meaning does it have, really?

Additionally -- how can "subconcious racism" be distinguished from "legitimate evaluation"? If there's no real way to tell, what can "subconscious racism" really mean? There has to be saliency there, or else it's merely unsupported accusation.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

That's problematic, though, because "subconcious racism" can therefore be invoked without accountability. If you can't prove it or disprove it, what meaning does it have, really?

Additionally -- how can "subconcious racism" be distinguished from "legitimate evaluation"? If there's no real way to tell, what can "subconscious racism" really mean? There has to be saliency there, or else it's merely unsupported accusation.

"You are a racist"

"That's not cool. I don't think I am at all"

"Well, you don't know you are, it's subconscious"

 

[Doug B]

I thought this discussion was about whether subconscious racial bias could possibly be one of the reasons Teddy Bridgewater might fall in the draft. I think it can. Will it be one of those reasons if he falls? I don't know, but I'm willing to concede that it might be. Those who say it definitely won't be one of those reasons can't prove that either. Why couldn't it be one of the reasons Bridgewater falls? If folks admit that subconscious racial bias exists (as you say, it's not a debate about that) then why couldn't it be one of the reasons he falls?

Your statement is too equivocal. Too much "could be", "might", "I'm willing to concede it might be", and such. That takes a lot of the bite out of matt W's point -- of course any given factor can cause someone to drop. But since we can't establish the exact factor, why elevate -- in advance -- any one over any other one (at least until some evidence comes in)?

Matt W's point, boiled down, is that should Bridgewater fall to a certain point, we can take it to the bank that subconsious racism was ultimately the reason. He asserts that such racism is manifest in the way Bridgewater is evaluated vs. the way other QBs are evaluated.

Now. If Matt were to retort "Hey, I never said 'take it to the bank' ... I was never THAT definite'" ... then his whole point falls apart. Is it really meaningful that there is a non-zero, but undefinable, chance that Bridgewater drops due to subconscious racism on the part of someone? If we can't get down to specifics, what are we really saying? An accusation of racism, of any kind and no matter how carefully couched, has bite -- and thus should not be casually invoked.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

So you boo us and applaud Matt. Many of us are beginning facts that counter his argument. You admit that you don't have any proof but still support his position.

Matt may have attempted to answer our questions, but he failed to accomplish this. I defeated his first two or three arguments and his remaining arguments about his life experience in White America don't apply.

Not sure if you signed up for the SSLs, but check out the mock draft forum is you want in.

I don't feel that the facts others are bringing up to counter Matt's argument bring any finality to it. They are just examples where Matt's beliefs do not apply. I don't think that's the end-all of it. I believe there still exists a subconscious racial bias within some NFL teams ownerships and managements. I cannot prove that it exists to anyone's satisfaction, I am sure. Folks seem to be looking for a specific example to be trotted out as proof. That's not gonna happen, and you guys know that.

Subconscious racial bias is just that.....subconscious. There won't be any blatantly obvious examples of it.

There are countless examples that counter that opinion though. So one side has no proof whatsoever beyond they just believe it occurs and the other side has plenty of examples that it doesn't occur. Yet you accused the other side of acting like children. Mind-boggling.

I could post that your posts come across with having a racial bias. I can't prove it but I can say I believe it. I can say anyone that disagrees with me is a child. Does that make you a racist?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Where was all this outrage last year when Geno Smith was supposed to go #1 and ended up in the 2nd round? Why wasn't Matt beating the racism drum then?

What about Ryan Nassib? He was supposed to go in the top 10 and fell several rounds. His own college coach drafted a black QB instead (Oh, I thought people didn't like black people being the face of the franchise). Are the black GMs racists for not drafting Nassib?

Why didn't Waldman lose his mind last year when his HOF QB prospect Tyler Wilson didn't get drafted high? Was that because people were racist? Or was it because Wilson you know actually wasn't a very good QB?

The whole notion of race during the draft is on mind-bogging levels of stupidity. There's plenty of evidence to support this.

 

[B-Deep]

I find Waldman's tweets trying to justify his position just as egregious as his statement in the podcast. I would like to see him explain how they are remotely related to his stance.

yeah i agree

his tweets seem out there

 

[Catbird]

The thing that keeps this debate going is that each of us truly and deeply believes that we are essentially not biased on a racial basis - we think our views are based on fact and fair interpretation of what we have seen, heard and read - or else we wouldn't have them. No one (of good faith) is trying to have an unfair or biased view. That leads us to think that others who view racial questions differently have an inaccurate view. When someone with their 'misguided' view says something that conflicts with our view, or worse, seems to criticize our view or us for having it, it feels like a personal attack from someone with misguided views and draws the kind of angry responses we see on both sides here.

One who is convinced that unconscious racism doesn't effect NFL drafting will read Richardson's questions to Cam and think, 'Even if that shows some level of racism, he got picked first and that proves it doesn't effect draft decisions. Another of us who believes such decisions likely are impacted by unconscious racism reads it and concludes, 'That shows the pattern. If Cam was a black man with tattoos and piercings he likely wouldn't have been picked first, because a 'ghetto look' or whatever isn't the face Richardson wanted for his franchise. We can't know without asking Richardson, and he is going to say, and probably deeply believe, that racism plays no part in his decisions. Like everyone, he thinks his beliefs are fair and unbiased and its those who disagree with him that are seeing things through blinders.

I think the reality is that we all have huge biases based on our family experiences, social experiences, political and religious beliefs, the thousands of anecdotal experiences which have made up our lives, as well as the beliefs of those we spend time with and discuss these things with. That's how people operate. We can't wake up every day and say, "Wow. There's a world out there. I wonder what its like?" Instead, we build a system of beliefs from what we have experienced and learned and use that framework to narrow and focus our daily decisions. If you are well off (or even if not well off) and your background and experiences have led you to believe the key problem in America is social welfare and what that has done to society, you are likely to have one reaction to an expansion of social benefits. If your experiences have shown you that its a world of 'haves' and 'have nots,' particularly if you see yourself as a 'have not,' you are likely to see that same change in benefits very differently.

But the thing is that we all think our views are unbiased and largely accurate. The reality is that we are all extremely biased by what we each have experienced and the framework we have made through which to view the world. How else could people of good faith and desiring only truth and justice and clear thought see the identical facts and draw such amazingly different conclusions? Our answer, I think quite naturally, is that those with different conclusions are kind of misguided, and so biased, in how they see things. Why else would they take the same facts and draw such errant conclusions.

I don't have a solution. I think its the human condition, at least in this paradigm. But if we could all step back a bit and accept that the other guy is not stupid or evil or probably any more biased than we are ourselves, but just in a different direction based on a different life and so different experiences and beliefs honestly held, maybe we would be better able to accept that the other guy is offering what he believes, not a personal attack to my beliefs, and take the interesting and good from it and let that we disagree with go.

I didn't mean this to be saying, 'peace and love, one and all'. Just that the seemingly huge differences in conclusions here reflect the biases we ALL have on racial issues - even though it seems to each of us, in our fairest analysis, that we are operating from truth and fairness - and so those who disagree must not be. If we accept that we might be just as far off as they are in another direction, we might be slower to vilify and quicker to listen and improve our own framework of beliefs.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I bet Waldman loves Nolan Nawrocki

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I like to believe that I have an open mind and that I try to put myself in others shoes when opinions differ. It is quite possible that I don't do this very well.

In my experience, anyone who acknowledges that he may not do this very well typically does it quite well. It's a subject where the Dunning-Kruger effect seems particularly applicable.