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

[Jersey Jammer]

... because the word "racism" was included in that opinion some people have totally lost their minds over it.

The word "racist" just can't be casually thrown out. It's too powerful of a taint. You accuse a person, a group, or institution or racism, you've got to have the goods to back it up. Not merely impressions or experential inferences.

It depends on what level it was used, in my opinion, or who it was directed towards. Matt made no specific allegations against anyone in particular nor did he claim it was a widespread quality that permeates every front office (or even 75% of the front offices as some have warped the statement into meaning).

If I said "racism exists in the United States" - would you equate that to me saying , "everyone in the US is a racist"? People have warped him saying that Bridgewater may fall due to racism, into him saying that "everyone that doesn't like Bridgewater is a racist".

Is it fair to say that unconscious racism/bias exists in almost all people, black, white, asian or other on some level? Is it fair to say that some of our decisions may be shaped by this, whether we think about it on a conscious level or not?

If you were walking down an otherwise deserted street at night, would you be more or less fearful of a person walking towards you depending on what race that person was? Would it matter if that person was white, black or asian? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. I think for many people it would, whether they are straight out biggots, saints or anything in between.

I think this was more the point he was trying to address, and as I said perhaps he could have been more subtle in his approach or even not said it at all - but the outrage over it just seems a little over the top in my opinion. I do realize it's a tricky and emotional topic however.

Dr O, he said if he falls "it's a fact..." it's due to racism. He didn't say "maybe it's due to racism". We haven't "warped" his views at all. So if "it's a fact", and I agree with an NFL team's assessment of TB then by default I too am a racist according to MW. You, and some other defenders in this thread don't seem to understand why those comments have been taken personally by so many of us.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It depends on what level it was used, in my opinion, or who it was directed towards. Matt made no specific allegations against anyone in particular nor did he claim it was a widespread quality that permeates every front office (or even 75% of the front offices as some have warped the statement into meaning).

If I said "racism exists in the United States" - would you equate that to me saying , "everyone in the US is a racist"? People have warped him saying that Bridgewater may fall due to racism, into him saying that "everyone that doesn't like Bridgewater is a racist".

What Matt W said was categorically different than the bolded, though. The number of people collectively involved in NFL draft selection is no more than several dozen -- maybe a few hundred if you include field scouts. Even with a non-specific allegation, Matt at a stroke calls into question the motivations of every one of this group. And further, as JamesTheScott pointed out, it's an allegation against which one cannot pose a defense. That's problematic, and isn't less problematic for the non-specificity IMHO.

Is it fair to say that unconscious racism/bias exists in almost all people, black, white, asian or other on some level? Is it fair to say that some of our decisions may be shaped by this, whether we think about it on a conscious level or not?

While I agree with both of these statements, I'd prefer to think of it as our reptilian brain's "Fear/Distrust of Other" and not directly equate it with a loaded word like "racism", Even if racism's ultimate origin is in hard-wired hominid tribalism, the outward expression of racism (as our sociery understands it) makes it stand far apart when evaluating the morality of given human actions.

Additionally: if something truly s subconscious, a person can't be faulted for it. What's the suggested remedy for wahtever transgression Bridgewater may suffer due to unconscious racism? Who could be blamed and truly held accountable for something of which they are not conscious? I realize these questions are beyond Matt's point, but they are the natural progression of the debate he has fostered. If a wrong is being commited, shouldn't it be righted? But then ... what if it can't be righted?

It certainly implies that anyone that doesn't view Bridgewater as a top 10 pick feels similarly though.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.

What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Dr O, he said if he falls "it's a fact..." it's due to racism. He didn't say "maybe it's due to racism". We haven't "warped" his views at all. So if "it's a fact", and I agree with an NFL team's assessment of TB then by default I too am a racist according to MW. You, and some other defenders in this thread don't seem to understand why those comments have been taken personally by so many of us.

I don't want to repeat the same thing over and over - but let's just say I don't agree with what your saying and I've already addressed why. If you are truly interested you will go back and figure out why I don't think Matt is saying "anyone that doesn't rate Bridgewater highly is a racist". So you really shouldn't take that personally - he did not call you a racist (if you don't think Bridgewater is a good prospect).

 

[Cato]

So a generalization/stereotype was made about a group of people (drafters) making generalization/stereotype about people (draftees), by someone who is supposed to assess things objectively, about people who are supposed to assess things objectively, in regards to sports performance. Unless a quantifiable instance of poor treatment of the recruit in question has happened, this sounds an awful lot like "my bias is better then everyone else's bias, and anyone who can't see that is biased."

That might be, but I'd like something a little more concrete to hang my hat on, rather then accept a generalization about drafters or a population in general. Inherent racism may exist, but I doubt everyone is inherently racist. Unless something concrete materializes, I think this boils down to "this is how I see the world". Which is fine, but I believe things are much more pluralistic then that, and to indicate everyone is monistically united, I think smacks a bit of what the accusation was in the 1st place, ie a generalization and stereotype of a population.

Maybe I'm off base, but I think that's what is causing offense... perhaps.

I don't believe you are too far off base. Matt's statement certainly provided a look at the world through his lens; his follow up and tweets showed pretty clearly how colored that lens is. That's not a problem, as we all have some bias (to varying degrees). The real issue is that his statement relies on anecdote and personal experience and has no basis in the facts surrounding the subject he was discussing.

This is problematic for a few reasons, one being that the podcast was not the proper place to have the discussion. IMO, the podcast is extremely unprofessional and Matt would have done better explaining his point of view more thoroughly on his blog or in some opinion piece on a non fantasy football website. The tone of the podcast is one of group of buddies getting together to shoot the ####. That can often lead to some loose talk, which in this case it clearly did.

Still, this isn't the main issue, as FBG can put out whatever product they like and people will buy it/subscribe or not (and it is safe to assume Joe and others are on board with the subject matter and tone of the podcast).

What really strikes me as problematic for Matt in particular is that he is known as a fairly objective analyst who uses data (film, stats, measurements) to come to a conclusion on his player evals. Though there is plenty of opportunity for subjective interpretation, he should strive to come to an objective decision based on what he observes. He clearly didn't do that in the case of Teddy Bridgewater with regards to the statements being discussed here. Instead of relying on the data (I know him to be a big proponent of the LCF, as an example) he resorted to emotion. Basically, instead of the objective he resorted to the subjective. That's what opened him up to the questioning of his methods for putting the RSP together- fair game given the facts.

That he injected race into the conversation, based on subjective reasoning, makes this a much more difficult situation for him to unwind.

So yes, I'd say you're on target but perhaps don't go far enough. Though it's better to not go far enough than to go too far (as many in here have done).

Agreed about subjective reasoning vs objective reasoning.

It could be said this is a classic example of a false dichotomy.

Take him that high or you're biased. Uh. What if I didn't like him on ABILITY? As a GM I become part of that false dichotomy.

 

[Doug B]

It certainly implies that anyone that doesn't view Bridgewater as a top 10 pick feels similarly though.

Someone could work hard and argue that point. But I think that throwing out "subconscious racism" does pretty much quash any reasonable debate about Bridgewater's abilities.

That's another problem with Matt W putting this out there -- intended or not, he doesn't leave room for anyone to legitimately criticize Bridgewater's abilities. Who rightfully determines what is legit evaluation vs. unfair nitpicking? Where is that line drawn?

 

[ICON211]

It certainly implies that anyone that doesn't view Bridgewater as a top 10 pick feels similarly though.

Someone could work hard and argue that point. But I think that throwing out "subconscious racism" does pretty much quash any reasonable debate about Bridgewater's abilities.

That's another problem with Matt W putting this out there -- intended or not, he doesn't leave room for anyone to legitimately criticize Bridgewater's abilities. Who rightfully determines what is legit evaluation vs. unfair nitpicking? Where is that line drawn?

Yes, that is another problem with his argument........Isn't it the job of evaluators to "nitpick" draft prospects? If Bridgewater is being "nitpicked" it seems to me that every other draft candidate is being also. I do not refer to a thorough evaluation as nitpicking.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's another problem with Matt W putting this out there -- intended or not, he doesn't leave room for anyone to legitimately criticize Bridgewater's abilities.

There's a 75% chance that you're making an unwarranted inference. The fact that everyone is biased in certain ways does not render all criticisms illegitimate. (It means only that, for any particular criticism that is not entirely uncontroversial, we should be less than 100% confident that it is accurate.)

 

[Doug B]

The fact that everyone is biased in certain ways does not render all criticisms illegitimate.

Understood, but how can anyone actually tell the difference between legitimate criticism and illegitimate application of subconscious racism? How can Matt Waldman, for instance, tell the diference? Again -- no bright line there. It has to come down to impressions and hunches.

Aside from all that -- since "everyone is biased in certain ways", why is it noteworthy that some bias (of any kind) is applied against Teddy Bridgewater? The "everyone is biased" tack really saps a lot of the punch out of Matt's statement.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.

What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

I think you are misreading what he said.

He said there was a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10.

He said that IF that happened, it was due to racism.

It's simple cause and effect. He isn't sure it will happen, but he knows why it will happen if it does. But he's 75% certain it will, which means he's pretty damn confident it will happen.

So then we ask how he can be so confident about what is going on in a few people's minds.

That's the corner he painted himself into with his "75%/will be" assertion.

I suppose he could think that Houston should with 100% certainty take Bridgewater, but he's thinks there's a 75% chance they are racist and won't and he's 100% confident that the remaining top 10 teams won't take Bridgewater, and that how he gets to his 75/100 numbers, but I highly doubt that...because then he could limit his accusation to the 1.01 pick rather than the top 10. Or he could limit it to Houston and Jacksonville and limit his accusation to those two picks or at most the top 3 picks. Or maybe he has St.Louis, Oakland and Cleveland in there as well, so we are up to the top 5 picks. Does he think Detroit at the 1.10 is thinking about Bridgewater? Or maybe that Arizona at 1.20 would otherwise trade with Detroit or Atlanta if they aren't racist?

I think his top 10 language is evidence that he wasn't thinking so specifically about it. But that's the problem. He is so certain and so entrenched in his assertion, and enough so that he puts numbers on it, even though he's lumping Detroit, Atlanta and possibly a couple of others into that statement. So then why make such a narrow assertion when the analysis so quickly breaks it down? Because his world view makes him comfortable enough to do so. Perhaps the veracity of his beliefs embolden him to speak so recklessly.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.

What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

I think you are misreading what he said.

He said there was a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10.

He said that IF that happened, it was due to racism.

It's simple cause and effect. He isn't sure it will happen, but he knows why it will happen if it does. But he's 75% certain it will, which means he's pretty damn confident it will happen.

So then we ask how he can be so confident about what is going on in a few people's minds.

That's the corner he painted himself into with his "75%/will be" assertion.

I suppose he could think that Houston should with 100% certainty take Bridgewater, but he's thinks there's a 75% chance they are racist and won't and he's 100% confident that the remaining top 10 teams won't take Bridgewater, and that how he gets to his 75/100 numbers, but I highly doubt that...because then he could limit his accusation to the 1.01 pick rather than the top 10. Or he could limit it to Houston and Jacksonville and limit his accusation to those two picks or at most the top 3 picks. Or maybe he has St.Louis, Oakland and Cleveland in there as well, so we are up to the top 5 picks. Does he think Detroit at the 1.10 is thinking about Bridgewater? Or maybe that Arizona at 1.20 would otherwise trade with Detroit or Atlanta if they aren't racist?

I think his top 10 language is evidence that he wasn't thinking so specifically about it. But that's the problem. He is so certain and so entrenched in his assertion, and enough so that he puts numbers on it, even though he's lumping Detroit, Atlanta and possibly a couple of others into that statement. So then why make such a narrow assertion when the analysis so quickly breaks it down? Because his world view makes him comfortable enough to do so. Perhaps the veracity of his beliefs embolden him to speak so recklessly.

One of us is - maybe it's me. I don't think so, but I could be.

Anyway - all I see now is a bunch of wheel spinning while the same points are made over and over. I'm ready to move on. Everyone is entitles to their own opinions (well not everyone I guess).

 

[cstu]

I do believe there are a lot of NFL decision makers who are thinking "Man, I feel a heck of a lot more comfortable being around Blake Bortles or even Manziel than Bridgewater".

This is an odd statement to me. All NFL teams have many African-American players -- wouldn't NFL decision makers be pretty well comfortable around players of any race? For example, would you expect someone like then-GM Ron Wolf to have some underlying apprehension when dealing with Reggie White, but feel totally differently with Brett Favre?

Here's what I'm trying to explain...you can be perfectly comfortable around a lot of different people but still be most comfortable with one specific race/culture. It's a matter of personality and it doesn't even have to be your own race/culture - for example, I feel most comfortable about Indian people than white people. Maybe there are white GM's out there who actually prefer black players to white player, you never know.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The fact that everyone is biased in certain ways does not render all criticisms illegitimate.

Understood, but how can anyone actually tell the difference between legitimate criticism and illegitimate application of subconscious racism? How can Matt Waldman, for instance, tell the diference? Again -- no bright line there. It has to come down to impressions and hunches.

The same way we try to figure out anything else that's complicated and difficult. We extrapolate from any relevant background information we have, we figure out the implications of various possibilities and then evaluate whether those implications are realistic (or actually observed), and we go with our best guess with the humility to acknowledge that we may be wrong.

Aside from all that -- since "everyone is biased in certain ways", why is it noteworthy that some bias (of any kind) is applied against Teddy Bridgewater?

It would be noteworthy to us FF nerds if it causes a player to fall out of the top ten of the NFL draft. Other than that, it may not be all that noteworthy to very many people.

 

[John 14:6]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

I think you are misreading what he said.

He said there was a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10.

He said that IF that happened, it was due to racism.

It's simple cause and effect. He isn't sure it will happen, but he knows why it will happen if it does. But he's 75% certain it will, which means he's pretty damn confident it will happen.

So then we ask how he can be so confident about what is going on in a few people's minds.

That's the corner he painted himself into with his "75%/will be" assertion.

I suppose he could think that Houston should with 100% certainty take Bridgewater, but he's thinks there's a 75% chance they are racist and won't and he's 100% confident that the remaining top 10 teams won't take Bridgewater, and that how he gets to his 75/100 numbers, but I highly doubt that...because then he could limit his accusation to the 1.01 pick rather than the top 10. Or he could limit it to Houston and Jacksonville and limit his accusation to those two picks or at most the top 3 picks. Or maybe he has St.Louis, Oakland and Cleveland in there as well, so we are up to the top 5 picks. Does he think Detroit at the 1.10 is thinking about Bridgewater? Or maybe that Arizona at 1.20 would otherwise trade with Detroit or Atlanta if they aren't racist?

I think his top 10 language is evidence that he wasn't thinking so specifically about it. But that's the problem. He is so certain and so entrenched in his assertion, and enough so that he puts numbers on it, even though he's lumping Detroit, Atlanta and possibly a couple of others into that statement. So then why make such a narrow assertion when the analysis so quickly breaks it down? Because his world view makes him comfortable enough to do so. Perhaps the veracity of his beliefs embolden him to speak so recklessly.

One of us is - maybe it's me. I don't think so, but I could be.

Anyway - all I see now is a bunch of wheel spinning while the same points are made over and over. I'm ready to move on. Everyone is entitles to their own opinions (well not everyone I guess).

He's entitled to his opinion, but others are also entitled to question and/or disagree with it.

 

[cstu]

It certainly implies that anyone that doesn't view Bridgewater as a top 10 pick feels similarly though.

Someone could work hard and argue that point. But I think that throwing out "subconscious racism" does pretty much quash any reasonable debate about Bridgewater's abilities.

That's another problem with Matt W putting this out there -- intended or not, he doesn't leave room for anyone to legitimately criticize Bridgewater's abilities. Who rightfully determines what is legit evaluation vs. unfair nitpicking? Where is that line drawn?

Yes, that is another problem with his argument........Isn't it the job of evaluators to "nitpick" draft prospects? If Bridgewater is being "nitpicked" it seems to me that every other draft candidate is being also. I do not refer to a thorough evaluation as nitpicking.

In my opinion Bortles is not getting nitpicked as he should be. Maybe it's nothing to do with race and maybe it's because of height-ism, but he's not being properly critiqued by the media (I assume teams are doing it but we're not getting their honest views).

 

[Doug B]

Because [Matt's] world view ...

It all really seems to come down to individual world view, doesn't it?

"Having seen a small part of life, swift to die, men rise and fly away like smoke, persuaded only of what each has met with ... Who then claims to find the whole?"

--Empedocles

 

[Abrantes]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.

What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

I think you are misreading what he said.

He said there was a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10.

He said that IF that happened, it was due to racism.

It's simple cause and effect. He isn't sure it will happen, but he knows why it will happen if it does. But he's 75% certain it will, which means he's pretty damn confident it will happen.

So then we ask how he can be so confident about what is going on in a few people's minds.

That's the corner he painted himself into with his "75%/will be" assertion.

I suppose he could think that Houston should with 100% certainty take Bridgewater, but he's thinks there's a 75% chance they are racist and won't and he's 100% confident that the remaining top 10 teams won't take Bridgewater, and that how he gets to his 75/100 numbers, but I highly doubt that...because then he could limit his accusation to the 1.01 pick rather than the top 10. Or he could limit it to Houston and Jacksonville and limit his accusation to those two picks or at most the top 3 picks. Or maybe he has St.Louis, Oakland and Cleveland in there as well, so we are up to the top 5 picks. Does he think Detroit at the 1.10 is thinking about Bridgewater? Or maybe that Arizona at 1.20 would otherwise trade with Detroit or Atlanta if they aren't racist?

I think his top 10 language is evidence that he wasn't thinking so specifically about it. But that's the problem. He is so certain and so entrenched in his assertion, and enough so that he puts numbers on it, even though he's lumping Detroit, Atlanta and possibly a couple of others into that statement. So then why make such a narrow assertion when the analysis so quickly breaks it down? Because his world view makes him comfortable enough to do so. Perhaps the veracity of his beliefs embolden him to speak so recklessly.

I think it's pretty evident that his reasoning is that, according to his own data-based evaluation, there is no reason why Bridgewater should fall. Hence, if he does, it must be for reasons other than on-field performance or character. That leads Matt to assume racism. Others may draw different conclusions. I don't think it's any more complicated than that, despite the staggering number of posts on the issue here.

 

[Doug B]

... we go with our best guess with the humility to acknowledge that we may be wrong.

Agreed.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.

What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

I think you are misreading what he said.

He said there was a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10.

He said that IF that happened, it was due to racism.

It's simple cause and effect. He isn't sure it will happen, but he knows why it will happen if it does. But he's 75% certain it will, which means he's pretty damn confident it will happen.

So then we ask how he can be so confident about what is going on in a few people's minds.

That's the corner he painted himself into with his "75%/will be" assertion.

I suppose he could think that Houston should with 100% certainty take Bridgewater, but he's thinks there's a 75% chance they are racist and won't and he's 100% confident that the remaining top 10 teams won't take Bridgewater, and that how he gets to his 75/100 numbers, but I highly doubt that...because then he could limit his accusation to the 1.01 pick rather than the top 10. Or he could limit it to Houston and Jacksonville and limit his accusation to those two picks or at most the top 3 picks. Or maybe he has St.Louis, Oakland and Cleveland in there as well, so we are up to the top 5 picks. Does he think Detroit at the 1.10 is thinking about Bridgewater? Or maybe that Arizona at 1.20 would otherwise trade with Detroit or Atlanta if they aren't racist?

I think his top 10 language is evidence that he wasn't thinking so specifically about it. But that's the problem. He is so certain and so entrenched in his assertion, and enough so that he puts numbers on it, even though he's lumping Detroit, Atlanta and possibly a couple of others into that statement. So then why make such a narrow assertion when the analysis so quickly breaks it down? Because his world view makes him comfortable enough to do so. Perhaps the veracity of his beliefs embolden him to speak so recklessly.

I think it's pretty evident that his reasoning is that, according to his own data-based evaluation, there is no reason why Bridgewater should fall. Hence, if he does, it must be for reasons other than on-field performance or character. That leads Matt to assume racism. Others may draw different conclusions. I don't think it's any more complicated than that, despite the staggering number of posts on the issue here.

I don't want to believe Waldman is foolish enough to set up this type of false dichotomy. But maybe he has.

 

[Abrantes]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.

What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

I think you are misreading what he said.

He said there was a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10.

He said that IF that happened, it was due to racism.

It's simple cause and effect. He isn't sure it will happen, but he knows why it will happen if it does. But he's 75% certain it will, which means he's pretty damn confident it will happen.

So then we ask how he can be so confident about what is going on in a few people's minds.

That's the corner he painted himself into with his "75%/will be" assertion.

I suppose he could think that Houston should with 100% certainty take Bridgewater, but he's thinks there's a 75% chance they are racist and won't and he's 100% confident that the remaining top 10 teams won't take Bridgewater, and that how he gets to his 75/100 numbers, but I highly doubt that...because then he could limit his accusation to the 1.01 pick rather than the top 10. Or he could limit it to Houston and Jacksonville and limit his accusation to those two picks or at most the top 3 picks. Or maybe he has St.Louis, Oakland and Cleveland in there as well, so we are up to the top 5 picks. Does he think Detroit at the 1.10 is thinking about Bridgewater? Or maybe that Arizona at 1.20 would otherwise trade with Detroit or Atlanta if they aren't racist?

I think his top 10 language is evidence that he wasn't thinking so specifically about it. But that's the problem. He is so certain and so entrenched in his assertion, and enough so that he puts numbers on it, even though he's lumping Detroit, Atlanta and possibly a couple of others into that statement. So then why make such a narrow assertion when the analysis so quickly breaks it down? Because his world view makes him comfortable enough to do so. Perhaps the veracity of his beliefs embolden him to speak so recklessly.

I think it's pretty evident that his reasoning is that, according to his own data-based evaluation, there is no reason why Bridgewater should fall. Hence, if he does, it must be for reasons other than on-field performance or character. That leads Matt to assume racism. Others may draw different conclusions. I don't think it's any more complicated than that, despite the staggering number of posts on the issue here.

I don't want to believe Waldman is foolish enough to set up this type of false dichotomy. But maybe he has.

Seems to me that people in this thread are treating Waldman as being far more foolish than what I proposed.

 

[avoiding injuries]

... because the word "racism" was included in that opinion some people have totally lost their minds over it.

The word "racist" just can't be casually thrown out. It's too powerful of a taint. You accuse a person, a group, or institution or racism, you've got to have the goods to back it up. Not merely impressions or experential inferences.

Yep, and what casually throwing around that accusation does is diminish its meaning. Based on the explanation given in this thread, I don't see why anyone should be concerned whether Matt thinks they're racist or not.

 

[Neofight]

So a generalization/stereotype was made about a group of people (drafters) making generalization/stereotype about people (draftees), by someone who is supposed to assess things objectively, about people who are supposed to assess things objectively, in regards to sports performance. Unless a quantifiable instance of poor treatment of the recruit in question has happened, this sounds an awful lot like "my bias is better then everyone else's bias, and anyone who can't see that is biased."

That might be, but I'd like something a little more concrete to hang my hat on, rather then accept a generalization about drafters or a population in general. Inherent racism may exist, but I doubt everyone is inherently racist. Unless something concrete materializes, I think this boils down to "this is how I see the world". Which is fine, but I believe things are much more pluralistic then that, and to indicate everyone is monistically united, I think smacks a bit of what the accusation was in the 1st place, ie a generalization and stereotype of a population.

Maybe I'm off base, but I think that's what is causing offense... perhaps.

I don't believe you are too far off base. Matt's statement certainly provided a look at the world through his lens; his follow up and tweets showed pretty clearly how colored that lens is. That's not a problem, as we all have some bias (to varying degrees). The real issue is that his statement relies on anecdote and personal experience and has no basis in the facts surrounding the subject he was discussing.This is problematic for a few reasons, one being that the podcast was not the proper place to have the discussion. IMO, the podcast is extremely unprofessional and Matt would have done better explaining his point of view more thoroughly on his blog or in some opinion piece on a non fantasy football website. The tone of the podcast is one of group of buddies getting together to shoot the ####. That can often lead to some loose talk, which in this case it clearly did.

Still, this isn't the main issue, as FBG can put out whatever product they like and people will buy it/subscribe or not (and it is safe to assume Joe and others are on board with the subject matter and tone of the podcast).

What really strikes me as problematic for Matt in particular is that he is known as a fairly objective analyst who uses data (film, stats, measurements) to come to a conclusion on his player evals. Though there is plenty of opportunity for subjective interpretation, he should strive to come to an objective decision based on what he observes. He clearly didn't do that in the case of Teddy Bridgewater with regards to the statements being discussed here. Instead of relying on the data (I know him to be a big proponent of the LCF, as an example) he resorted to emotion. Basically, instead of the objective he resorted to the subjective. That's what opened him up to the questioning of his methods for putting the RSP together- fair game given the facts.

That he injected race into the conversation, based on subjective reasoning, makes this a much more difficult situation for him to unwind.

So yes, I'd say you're on target but perhaps don't go far enough. Though it's better to not go far enough than to go too far (as many in here have done).

Agreed about subjective reasoning vs objective reasoning.

It could be said this is a classic example of a false dichotomy.

Take him that high or you're biased. Uh. What if I didn't like him on ABILITY? As a GM I become part of that false dichotomy.

True. And that has riled up some folks as well.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.What he was talking about, were the draft decision makers for the 32 teams and even then, that figure was not 100%, it was 75%, so it was not every single person even among that group. Mischaracterization of the point he was making (which has been pretty much the case from page one of this thread).

So 75% of NFL draft decisions have subconscious racism if they don't like Bridgewater? That sounds less absurd?

Do you really take everything so litterally in every discussion you have or in every article you read?

There was a 75% chance that he falls in the draft (like I said, perhaps putting a percentage on it was misguided) - and if he falls it may be due to some of the decision makers subconscious racism.

Not every team that passes on him needs a QB, and some may pass on him for other reasons (perhaps they have much greater needs at other positions or rate a CB or S much higher), but (in Matt's opinion) there could be a team that has a need for a QB that passes due to subconscious racism - so he is in no way saying that 75% of NFL owners are racists.

The transcript I read early in the thread said "will". That's 100%. Your use of the word "may" could range as low as 1%. There's a huge difference there.

So, if Waldman did use the word "will", are you being intentionally or subconsciously dishonest when you say he said "may"?

Well "may" was my word in explaining the process of why Matt wasn't stating that 75% of the NFL owners are racist if Bridgewater falls, because some of those owners "may" have a legit reason to pass (i.e. if Buffalo passes, it's because they drafted a guy last season they beleive in or if Houston passes it's because Clowney may be a once in a generation talent).

When Matt says it "will" be because of racism - that is in general, as in there "will" be a team that passes on him because of the subconcious racism so he "will" fall even further than he should have. He's not saying that every team "will" pass on him for racist reasons, just that his fall "will" be as a result.

I think you are misreading what he said.

He said there was a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10.

He said that IF that happened, it was due to racism.

It's simple cause and effect. He isn't sure it will happen, but he knows why it will happen if it does. But he's 75% certain it will, which means he's pretty damn confident it will happen.

So then we ask how he can be so confident about what is going on in a few people's minds.

That's the corner he painted himself into with his "75%/will be" assertion.

I suppose he could think that Houston should with 100% certainty take Bridgewater, but he's thinks there's a 75% chance they are racist and won't and he's 100% confident that the remaining top 10 teams won't take Bridgewater, and that how he gets to his 75/100 numbers, but I highly doubt that...because then he could limit his accusation to the 1.01 pick rather than the top 10. Or he could limit it to Houston and Jacksonville and limit his accusation to those two picks or at most the top 3 picks. Or maybe he has St.Louis, Oakland and Cleveland in there as well, so we are up to the top 5 picks. Does he think Detroit at the 1.10 is thinking about Bridgewater? Or maybe that Arizona at 1.20 would otherwise trade with Detroit or Atlanta if they aren't racist?

I think his top 10 language is evidence that he wasn't thinking so specifically about it. But that's the problem. He is so certain and so entrenched in his assertion, and enough so that he puts numbers on it, even though he's lumping Detroit, Atlanta and possibly a couple of others into that statement. So then why make such a narrow assertion when the analysis so quickly breaks it down? Because his world view makes him comfortable enough to do so. Perhaps the veracity of his beliefs embolden him to speak so recklessly.

One of us is - maybe it's me. I don't think so, but I could be.

Anyway - all I see now is a bunch of wheel spinning while the same points are made over and over. I'm ready to move on. Everyone is entitles to their own opinions (well not everyone I guess).

He's entitled to his opinion, but others are also entitled to question and/or disagree with it.

That's a fair point.

 

[Old Smiley]

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

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

Somebody tell me how often this horsebleep comes up with white prospects. I say this as someone who is not enamoured with Bridgewater as a passer.

 

[thecatch]

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

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

Somebody tell me how often this horsebleep comes up with white prospects. I say this as someone who is not enamoured with Bridgewater as a passer.

You've heard of this Manziel guy right?

 

[Old Smiley]

Yeah, but Manziel actually has done stuff. Sold autographs, several arrests, ducked out of the Manning camp, fist fight with a GA at his school. That's real stuff.

Silly comparison.

 

[RUSF18]

Ryan Mallet...stemmed from concerns with his attitude and alleged drug use.

 

[cstu]

Ryan Mallet...stemmed from concerns with his attitude and alleged drug use.

And white QB's aren't supposed to sound like Vanilla Ice.

 

[bigmarc27]

Charles Davis was on the radio this afternoon. I'm paraphrasing but he basically said that Bridgewater is falling only in the minds of reporters and analysts. He said that a college player has a big game or big season and people in his field run with it but as far as scouts and teams are concerned, he wasn't ever the top guy on many of their boards.

 

[BassNBrew]

Sims was on the radio yesterday saying people were questioning Manziel's decision making ability. He also said the pro day performance will trump Bridgewater's game tape.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Yeah, but Manziel actually has done stuff. Sold autographs, several arrests, ducked out of the Manning camp, fist fight with a GA at his school. That's real stuff.

Silly comparison.

You asked for a white prospect who gets the "face of the franchise" doubts. Manziel is a legitimate answer. As is Mallet.

 

[jacobo_moses]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

 

[fatness]

Matt says we all have subconscious racism if we don't like Bridgewater.

Actually he didn't say that. He wasn't talking about every single person in the world who has a negative opinion of Bridgewater, and he didn't say that there could be no other reason that one could not like Bridgewater.

You're right. But here we are 19 pages in with the same people acting as though Waldman said something negative about them.

 

[fatness]

I have responded several times and I hope the respectful place the responses came from were obvious. You are entitled to your opinion and you do not owe anyone anything for expressing that opinion.My first response to your earnest post is wow; its as if you are a fish and have no concept of water.

I hope you were being intentionally ironic there.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I have responded several times and I hope the respectful place the responses came from were obvious. You are entitled to your opinion and you do not owe anyone anything for expressing that opinion.My first response to your earnest post is wow; its as if you are a fish and have no concept of water.

I hope you were being intentionally ironic there.

It's especially weird since fish are too stupid to know what water is anyway.

 

[cstu]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

Did you forget that Tim Couch went ahead of Culpepper and McNabb?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

Did you forget that Tim Couch went ahead of Culpepper and McNabb?

Akili Smith? Even these racist NFL guys take black guys early when they aren't any good.

 

[bigmarc27]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

Did you forget that Tim Couch went ahead of Culpepper and McNabb?

Akili Smith? Even these racist NFL guys take black guys early when they aren't any good.

That draft was 15 years ago and three black QBs went in the top eleven picks. Now we're coming up on the 2014 draft and because one prospect might possibly fall, it's due to subliminal racism.

Hilarious.

 

[cstu]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

Did you forget that Tim Couch went ahead of Culpepper and McNabb?

Akili Smith? Even these racist NFL guys take black guys early when they aren't any good.

That draft was 15 years ago and three black QBs went in the top eleven picks. Now we're coming up on the 2014 draft and because one prospect might possibly fall, it's due to subliminal racism.

Hilarious.

Nobody critiqued Couch at all. He won some big games against teams Kentucky hadn't beaten (Alabama) and was cool under pressure but inadaquacies in his mechanics and arm were ignored.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

Did you forget that Tim Couch went ahead of Culpepper and McNabb?

Akili Smith? Even these racist NFL guys take black guys early when they aren't any good.

That draft was 15 years ago and three black QBs went in the top eleven picks. Now we're coming up on the 2014 draft and because one prospect might possibly fall, it's due to subliminal racism.

Hilarious.

Nobody critiqued Couch at all. He won some big games against teams Kentucky hadn't beaten (Alabama) and was cool under pressure but inadaquacies in his mechanics and arm were ignored.

Must be due to his race. No other explanation.

 

[B-Deep]

Would you pass on Newton for Gabbert or Bridgewater for Bortles (assuming Bridgewater was better) if your livelihood depended on it because you are a sub-consciencous racist?

No, and that's why it's unlikely that Bridgewater actually does fall due to race. I do believe there are a lot of NFL decision makers who are thinking "Man, I feel a heck of a lot more comfortable being around Blake Bortles or even Manziel than Bridgewater". It won't affect their final decision since they are professionals but that thinking is there.

how can anyone say what they would subconsciously do?

 

[John 14:6]

I'd love to see at least one black qb taken before Bridgewater...

 

[Kevrunner]

Using Matt's statements, couldn't every minority person who goes in for a job interview and doesn't get hired, sue the company? They could claim that the only reason there were not hired was because there is a 75% chance that the interviewer subconsciously penalized them solely because of their race.

 

[Sweet Love]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

I think the point of the draft being pushed is mainly why he is falling...with that said, did Waldman ever quantify how far he would actually fall? You can't just point to Houston or Cleveland, etc., and say "according to Waldman they are racist" (jacobo_moses, this is adding to the point you made, not putting words in yours or anyone's mouth)....? If Bridgewater were to last to the teens without race being considered (and all these QBs are dropping, not just him), and a team with a QB need pauses based on race (conscious or subconscious), even if the next team up grabs him, he has fallen due to race...just some food for thought.

Here is the other thought I have. Culpepper got Minny nothing, McNabb did really well, but could not get over the hump (and his leadership was questioned), Vick got into trouble. Maybe we are beginning to see a mini-backlash of taking an African American quarterback so early? Cam has been very good in NC, but you have another QB where is leadership is being questioned. As far as the questions about whether someone would risk their job based on racist views, the answer is "of course". Anyone who is open about or covertly acts on their racist views, is likely risking their employment. But the mentality of someone with these views is that they don't approach it as though, "Hmm, the black guy is much better and help me win more games than the white guy...but I am going to take the white guy anyway", he is already coming up with reasons (consciously or subconsciously) as to why the black person isn't as good as others may think (and these reasons are based on race), and therefore, the white guy is the better selection.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Using Matt's statements, couldn't every minority person who goes in for a job interview and doesn't get hired, sue the company? They could claim that the only reason there were not hired was because there is a 75% chance that the interviewer subconsciously penalized them solely because of their race.

Well, anyone can sue. They would have a tough time with their burden of proof however.

 

[Cato]

Using Matt's statements, couldn't every minority person who goes in for a job interview and doesn't get hired, sue the company? They could claim that the only reason there were not hired was because there is a 75% chance that the interviewer subconsciously penalized them solely because of their race.

Well, anyone can sue. They would have a tough time with their burden of proof however.

See also Michael Sam. If he is drafted 7th round based on talent vs he is drafted 7th round as based on other factors and biases, good luck proving that one.

Treatment of the prospect is a provable item, however where he is drafted could be argued as extreremely multi-factorial therefore indicative of exactly nothing as one cannot isolate that variable or bias. (Or it takes someone smarter then me, to do so, I don't see how at the moment.)

Obviously all prospects should be treated to the same respect/nit-picking.

 

[bigmarc27]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

Did you forget that Tim Couch went ahead of Culpepper and McNabb?

Akili Smith? Even these racist NFL guys take black guys early when they aren't any good.

That draft was 15 years ago and three black QBs went in the top eleven picks. Now we're coming up on the 2014 draft and because one prospect might possibly fall, it's due to subliminal racism.

Hilarious.

Nobody critiqued Couch at all. He won some big games against teams Kentucky hadn't beaten (Alabama) and was cool under pressure but inadaquacies in his mechanics and arm were ignored.

I'm sorry, but can you find any evidence that Couch wasn't critiqued? I'd prefer some proof of that before just accepting a blanket statement without any facts to back it up. Of course that's about par for the course as far as this thread goes.

 

[cstu]

I would say he isnt falling due to racism. He's falling cause they pushed the draft backand allowing people to over analyze his game more now. I mean come on do you remember Culpepper or McNabb getting that treatment? And that was 15 yrs ago

Did you forget that Tim Couch went ahead of Culpepper and McNabb?

Akili Smith? Even these racist NFL guys take black guys early when they aren't any good.

That draft was 15 years ago and three black QBs went in the top eleven picks. Now we're coming up on the 2014 draft and because one prospect might possibly fall, it's due to subliminal racism.

Hilarious.

Nobody critiqued Couch at all. He won some big games against teams Kentucky hadn't beaten (Alabama) and was cool under pressure but inadaquacies in his mechanics and arm were ignored.

I'm sorry, but can you find any evidence that Couch wasn't critiqued? I'd prefer some proof of that before just accepting a blanket statement without any facts to back it up. Of course that's about par for the course as far as this thread goes.

Who's the man with the golden arm?

Couch does have some things to learn. He took too many blind-side hits in college, which in the pros usually leads to a concussion. And he had a tendency to throw off his back foot, and hold the ball at ear level, instead of around his shoulder. But these are minor flaws that Browns Coach Chris Palmer, excellent working with quarterbacks, can help fix.

And please, do not talk about how Couch got his big numbers because of the run-and-shoot offense, and how those kinds of players don't make it big in the pros. Couch completed over 70 percent of his passes, and run-and-shoot or not, that is impressive. He is also smart enough to adapt to a more pro-style system.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/04/cleveland_browns_shopped_their.html

Added Coach Palmer: "Akili and Tim are neck and neck and Ricky Williams is still in the race. We'll go into the bunker now to make our decision, but it won't be easy.

"It probably won't be made until Saturday morning."

Dwight Clark, director of football operations said: "I would say it was better [than his previous workout]. I don't know that it was much better.

Tim's mechanics need a lot of work. Akili's mechanics? You wouldn't have to touch them," Clark said. "Tim would have to work on his, but it's nothing that can't be worked out, especially with a quarterback expert like coach Palmer."

Couch, 21, threw 115 passes and ran the 40-yard dash twice, once in 4.9 seconds and once in 4.8, faster than expected. And that was after he threw 40 passes. Palmer was much more satisfied with Couch's workout yesterday than the one on March 11. He likened it more to Smith's great workout last month.

"He was more relaxed and threw with more confidence," said Palmer. "There's no question in my mind [about his arm strength]. The wind will not be a factor for him."

Palmer said Smith has greater arm strength and better mechanics, but pointed out that Couch played only three years at Kentucky and is 21. Smith is 23. "What you see with Tim right now is not necessarily what you're going to get," Palmer said.

Palmer worked a lot with Couch yesterday on the height of his release, his hip rotation and his balance. Couch also did a lot better with the new grip he's been working on for the past six weeks.

 

[bigmarc27]

Fair enough - if Cleveland wasn't full of racists then they could have had the great Akili and the fortunes of their franchise would have been changed forever!

 

[John 14:6]

It looks like couch WAS critiqued. The browns just weren't smart enough to take someone else instead...