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

[dehaven123]

I got banned 24 hrs for posting against Waldman(as did a few others in this thread), so basically no point in replying to this topic anymore, admins are just deleting negative comments, trying to make it appear as if the majority of FBG users think Waldman was in the right when clearly that isn't the case.

Just a bunch of manipulator admins for doing that, watch, this comment gets deleted and I get banned for life. What a joke.

that seems to be the theme with those of members who dissented.

not sure why the staff didn't just delete the original post the to begin with.

letting people pretend to have a conversation by muting the posts of several members exposes a different kind of problem.

its their site though, they can censor who and when they like i suppose.

Yeah, 7 page thread, 90% of the posts #####ing about the racism/Bridgewater thing, but they are muting people. LMFAO.

to me, im indifferent to the takeaway you have that 90% of the posts feel like or come off a certain way to anyone, that wasn't the opinion i was trying to express or the point i was trying to make. your clearly right though, most of the posts do represent a similar tone.

maybe i can expand on the brevity of my post a little. my point was that i personally feel all of the voices should be heard in any conversation. im of the opinion that all the perspective offered, not just some of it, should have the same audience as the other posts are seemingly entitled, merit or perceived worthiness of the post aside. i do understand though that they have the right to decide some opinions may be deemed 'out of bounds' or aren't entitled to that same audience, for whatever reason. that's ok. like i said, it's their place, they make the rules. a FF board isn't the best place for this kind of social conversation anyways. i hope this helps one better understand my perspective.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I got banned 24 hrs for posting against Waldman(as did a few others in this thread), so basically no point in replying to this topic anymore, admins are just deleting negative comments, trying to make it appear as if the majority of FBG users think Waldman was in the right when clearly that isn't the case.

Just a bunch of manipulator admins for doing that, watch, this comment gets deleted and I get banned for life. What a joke.

that seems to be the theme with those of members who dissented.

not sure why the staff didn't just delete the original post the to begin with.

letting people pretend to have a conversation by muting the posts of several members exposes a different kind of problem.

its their site though, they can censor who and when they like i suppose.

Yeah, 7 page thread, 90% of the posts #####ing about the racism/Bridgewater thing, but they are muting people. LMFAO.

to me, im indifferent to the takeaway you have that 90% of the posts feel like or come off a certain way to anyone, that wasn't the opinion i was trying to express or the point i was trying to make. your clearly right though, most of the posts do represent a similar tone.

maybe i can expand on the brevity of my post a little. my point was that i personally feel all of the voices should be heard in any conversation. im of the opinion that all the perspective offered, not just some of it, should have the same audience as the other posts are seemingly entitled, merit or perceived worthiness of the post aside. i do understand though that they have the right to decide some opinions may be deemed 'out of bounds' or aren't entitled to that same audience, for whatever reason. that's ok. like i said, it's their place, they make the rules. a FF board isn't the best place for this kind of social conversation anyways. i hope this helps one better understand my perspective.

FWIW I had posts deleted as well, though I understand why.

 

[dehaven123]

I got banned 24 hrs for posting against Waldman(as did a few others in this thread), so basically no point in replying to this topic anymore, admins are just deleting negative comments, trying to make it appear as if the majority of FBG users think Waldman was in the right when clearly that isn't the case.

Just a bunch of manipulator admins for doing that, watch, this comment gets deleted and I get banned for life. What a joke.

that seems to be the theme with those of members who dissented.

not sure why the staff didn't just delete the original post the to begin with.

letting people pretend to have a conversation by muting the posts of several members exposes a different kind of problem.

its their site though, they can censor who and when they like i suppose.

Yeah, 7 page thread, 90% of the posts #####ing about the racism/Bridgewater thing, but they are muting people. LMFAO.

to me, im indifferent to the takeaway you have that 90% of the posts feel like or come off a certain way to anyone, that wasn't the opinion i was trying to express or the point i was trying to make. your clearly right though, most of the posts do represent a similar tone.

maybe i can expand on the brevity of my post a little. my point was that i personally feel all of the voices should be heard in any conversation. im of the opinion that all the perspective offered, not just some of it, should have the same audience as the other posts are seemingly entitled, merit or perceived worthiness of the post aside. i do understand though that they have the right to decide some opinions may be deemed 'out of bounds' or aren't entitled to that same audience, for whatever reason. that's ok. like i said, it's their place, they make the rules. a FF board isn't the best place for this kind of social conversation anyways. i hope this helps one better understand my perspective.

FWIW I had posts deleted as well, though I understand why.

fwiw, i have not been one of those highlighted for post deletion or a forced vaca.

i have posted a couple times obviously, but in my mind staying above the fray, at best dancing around the edges of the real conversation going on in here. thing is, i know my opinion doesn't matter, no one truly cares what any or each of us really thinks. my original comment was limited to weighing in on the '75%' comment, back when this thread started, only because i found it silly, not personally offensive, to attach a % to something like this. in my mind, if i accept the the premise of Matt's statement, suggesting one could assess a tangibility to it is silly. in a way, any frustration i could have had with the sentiment he expressed was nullified by the fact a % was tied to it. it became EZ to personally dismiss any sentiment or disagreement i could have had with the podcast knowing that a % was applied. i think my other post was about the censoring of some of the posters thoughts though, which you did respond to and we are discussing. as i mentioned, i just dont think limiting the conversation is constructive to those participating or reading, for several viable reasons. i totally understand though and accept that fguys can influence the conversation in any way they see fit and at their discretion, they reserve that right. id never have a problem with that, i just disagree with the approach, generally speaking.

 

[bigmarc27]

I find it odd he can't come in for 5 minutes and post a response. It's been a week.

 

[cobalt_27]

What are the timeouts for? It's just discussion of a comment a staffer made on a podcast.

You've been a member here since 2004 and have to ask this question? This place gets modded...HARD. It's like North Korea in here.

You been around much lately? Other than this thread, no moderation to be found almost anywhere, except for egregious violations. It's nothing like the old days.

Oh you mean like when Joe and David actually gave a ####? When they were regular contributors? When the moderation team had clear instructions from the guys at the top who took the time to work the room and know the culture?

Yeah that's all changed. I'm glad FBG has become a gazillion dollar business because it's well earned. But, they've lost touch and the randomness of the moderation is a direct reflection of this. Waldman's flagrant distancing himself from making any comment to clarify or expand upon his thoughts from a week ago is another.

 

[jurb26]

I find it odd he can't come in for 5 minutes and post a response. It's been a week.

I haven't read thru this thread, mostly because I figured it's probably all pissing back and forth. This is pretty surprising though. When I saw this thing made it to 7 pages I assumed maybe there was some real content and solid debating going on with Matt and others. Has he really not even posted?

 

[davinci78]

I find it odd he can't come in for 5 minutes and post a response. It's been a week.

I haven't read thru this thread, mostly because I figured it's probably all pissing back and forth. This is pretty surprising though. When I saw this thing made it to 7 pages I assumed maybe there was some real content and solid debating going on with Matt and others. Has he really not even posted?

Probably realizes how idiotic his rant was. Tweeted him something about it and he claims racism is a psychological issue. I'm seeing a psych now because I can't stand vanilla ice cream, hoping he can cure me.

 

[Soulfly3]

Listen, forget the "face of the franchise" stuff for a second...

Without even looking at the past... let's say 10 years. I am willing to bet that WELL over 50% (I would go so far as to say 70%) of the top 10 draft picks were black.

Am I far off? I'm too damn lazy to do the legwork for it, but Id be willing to take a week or two ban if Im wrong on more than 50%.

Color dont mean a damn thing in the NFL. It's all about who gives you the best chance of winning. And last I checked, you dont get extra points for ivory skin.

 

[Bri]

you guys still discussing this?

 

[Kevrunner]

you guys still discussing this?

Just curious if you listened to the podcast and if so, do you think it is worth discussing?

 

[Dr Oadi]

you guys still discussing this?

Just curious if you listened to the podcast and if so, do you think it is worth discussing?

No and yes because it's more entertaining than the podcast.

 

[squistion]

you guys still discussing this?

Just curious if you listened to the podcast and if so, do you think it is worth discussing?

Perhaps he was referring to this:

 

[MoveToSkypager]

you guys still discussing this?

Above the post, the time stamp is shown. Those stamps show that several posts were submitted today.

HTH

 

[Matt Waldman]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

 

[johnjohn]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

It isn't about your views that racism exists, its about your views that racism affects the NFL draft when recent history has proven that statement to be very silly. Nice try trying to twist the argument around though lol

 

[cstu]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

It isn't about your views that racism exists, its about your views that racism affects the NFL draft when recent history has proven that statement to be very silly. Nice try trying to twist the argument around though lol

It hasn't been proven silly - go back and look at what happened to Cam Newton when he was the #1 pick vs. what happened to Luck. No one has explained to me why Newton was forced to say he wouldn't get tattoos if the Panthers drafted him while Luck was never asked anything like that.

I don't believe there would have been any consideration for Newton over Luck just as there wasn't for RG3 over Luck. All things being equal teams are going to choose a white QB as the 'face' of their organization (see Tim Couch).

 

[jurb26]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

It isn't about your views that racism exists, its about your views that racism affects the NFL draft when recent history has proven that statement to be very silly. Nice try trying to twist the argument around though lol

It hasn't been proven silly - go back and look at what happened to Cam Newton when he was the #1 pick vs. what happened to Luck. No one has explained to me why Newton was forced to say he wouldn't get tattoos if the Panthers drafted him while Luck was never asked anything like that.

I don't believe there would have been any consideration for Newton over Luck just as there wasn't for RG3 over Luck. All things being equal teams are going to choose a white QB as the 'face' of their organization (see Tim Couch).

Really? This is the example we're going with? Newton had a checkered past. Luck did not. Race had nothing to do with it. The decisions each player made as youngsters did. Let's try to keep awful reaches out of this.

 

[bigmarc27]

So no response to any of the valid criticisms and no explanation of why you believe what you believe other than the fact that you've had conversations with people?

I'm not saying you have to come answer every single thing here, but an explanation of your thought process besides "I just feel that way" is warranted. Surly non-responses like the one above are why people get so fed up with the media these days.

 

[cstu]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

It isn't about your views that racism exists, its about your views that racism affects the NFL draft when recent history has proven that statement to be very silly. Nice try trying to twist the argument around though lol

It hasn't been proven silly - go back and look at what happened to Cam Newton when he was the #1 pick vs. what happened to Luck. No one has explained to me why Newton was forced to say he wouldn't get tattoos if the Panthers drafted him while Luck was never asked anything like that.

I don't believe there would have been any consideration for Newton over Luck just as there wasn't for RG3 over Luck. All things being equal teams are going to choose a white QB as the 'face' of their organization (see Tim Couch).

Really? This is the example we're going with? Newton had a checkered past. Luck did not. Race had nothing to do with it. The decisions each player made as youngsters did.Let's try to keep awful reaches out of this.

What do tattoos have to do with his checkered past?

 

[placebo]

There's a big difference between there being elements of racism in the drafting process, and a team flat out not picking a guy because he's black. Ultimately, Cam Newton did go #1, and IIRC, it was draftniks that derided the pick, not NFL GM's.

 

[cstu]

There's a big difference between there being elements of racism in the drafting process, and a team flat out not picking a guy because he's black. Ultimately, Cam Newton did go #1, and IIRC, it was draftniks that derided the pick, not NFL GM's.

It's about winning, period, so you're right. But I have no doubt in my mind that Jerry Richardson harbors some racist thoughts.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi Folks,

Just a quick comment on this.

Racism is obviously a topic people are passionate about. No news there. But please keep this a civil discussion and be excellent to one another. Please discuss this without attacks on other posters or writing that wouldn't make it on air on ESPN TV. This can be a helpful topic. But the mods will have very little patience for posters that want to see how far they can push the line. If you think what you're about to write is possibly over the line, it probably is.

A much better discussion point would be to give us your thoughts on how the different QBs will perform on the field next year.

Thanks.

J

 

[yellowdog]

Hi Folks,

Just a quick comment on this.

Racism is obviously a topic people are passionate about. No news there. But please keep this a civil discussion and be excellent to one another. Please discuss this without attacks on other posters or writing that wouldn't make it on air on ESPN TV. This can be a helpful topic. But the mods will have very little patience for posters that want to see how far they can push the line. If you think what you're about to write is possibly over the line, it probably is.

A much better discussion point would be to give us your thoughts on how the different QBs will perform on the field next year.

Thanks.

J

That's just the type of information that we're looking for in FBG podcasts. JMHO

 

[Joe Bryant]

What are the timeouts for? It's just discussion of a comment a staffer made on a podcast.

You've been a member here since 2004 and have to ask this question? This place gets modded...HARD. It's like North Korea in here.

You been around much lately? Other than this thread, no moderation to be found almost anywhere, except for egregious violations. It's nothing like the old days.

Oh you mean like when Joe and David actually gave a ####? When they were regular contributors? When the moderation team had clear instructions from the guys at the top who took the time to work the room and know the culture?

Yeah that's all changed. I'm glad FBG has become a gazillion dollar business because it's well earned. But, they've lost touch and the randomness of the moderation is a direct reflection of this. Waldman's flagrant distancing himself from making any comment to clarify or expand upon his thoughts from a week ago is another.

Hi Cobalt,

Sorry to hear you feel that way. I can assure you I care quite a bit. But you're of course right in that I haven't been posting to the boards of late. I hope to do better with that this year. As for moderation, I know the moderators try hard to be consistent but it is (and always has been) a challenge. If you see things out of line, please let us know and we'll to look. As for Matt, I know he was very hesitant to engage as things can spiral downward quickly sometimes. On the other hand, I understand the desire for him to clarify more. Bottom line is I care a lot about these forums and I want to keep them a place for positive discussion. Thanks for helping us do that.

J

 

[Soulfly3]

My spirits have been lifted knowing I contributed in bringing Waldman and Bryant out of the shadows.

Feels like 2005 in here

 

[cobalt_27]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

It isn't about your views that racism exists, its about your views that racism affects the NFL draft when recent history has proven that statement to be very silly. Nice try trying to twist the argument around though lol

It hasn't been proven silly - go back and look at what happened to Cam Newton when he was the #1 pick vs. what happened to Luck. No one has explained to me why Newton was forced to say he wouldn't get tattoos if the Panthers drafted him while Luck was never asked anything like that.

I don't believe there would have been any consideration for Newton over Luck just as there wasn't for RG3 over Luck. All things being equal teams are going to choose a white QB as the 'face' of their organization (see Tim Couch).

First, Cam had a range of character concerns, the least of which were tattoos. And, with all his baggage, he still went #1 overall. Go figure.

Second, it's kind of a silly, paper thin argument for racism to make a comparison to Luck, who's a freakish prototype of everything you could want in one package at QB.

And, for what it's worth, Couch was an incredibly prolific passer at UK. That his success didn't translate to an expansion club in the NFL is hardly a case to make that his #1 selection was racist at the core.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

What are the timeouts for? It's just discussion of a comment a staffer made on a podcast.

You've been a member here since 2004 and have to ask this question? This place gets modded...HARD. It's like North Korea in here.

You been around much lately? Other than this thread, no moderation to be found almost anywhere, except for egregious violations. It's nothing like the old days.

Oh you mean like when Joe and David actually gave a ####? When they were regular contributors? When the moderation team had clear instructions from the guys at the top who took the time to work the room and know the culture?

Yeah that's all changed. I'm glad FBG has become a gazillion dollar business because it's well earned. But, they've lost touch and the randomness of the moderation is a direct reflection of this. Waldman's flagrant distancing himself from making any comment to clarify or expand upon his thoughts from a week ago is another.

Hi Cobalt,

Sorry to hear you feel that way. I can assure you I care quite a bit. But you're of course right in that I haven't been posting to the boards of late. I hope to do better with that this year. As for moderation, I know the moderators try hard to be consistent but it is (and always has been) a challenge. If you see things out of line, please let us know and we'll to look. As for Matt, I know he was very hesitant to engage as things can spiral downward quickly sometimes. On the other hand, I understand the desire for him to clarify more. Bottom line is I care a lot about these forums and I want to keep them a place for positive discussion. Thanks for helping us do that.

J

If I was you, I'd distance myself from Waldman who has lost all credibility here. You will lose customers if you don't. His RSP is also not worth a dime knowing that his player evaluations include race in their appraisals.

 

[Joe Bryant]

My spirits have been lifted knowing I contributed in bringing Waldman and Bryant out of the shadows.

Feels like 2005 in here

J

 

[cobalt_27]

A much better discussion point would be to give us your thoughts on how the different QBs will perform on the field next year.

Totally. This thread doesn't exist without Waldman extending way beyond his reach. I think we all would agree that there is relevance in discussing conditions and factors outside of a player's football skill set that potentially will elevate or diminish his draft stock. Yet, Waldman just sort of dropped the 'R' bomb with absolutely no context or data to back up his position. So, now he comes in and says, "Well, that's just my opinion, man" and walks away. Loses a massive amount of credibility.

So, yes, it would be awesome to predict how quarterbacks will perform at the next level. But, it's not like we can all just act like what one of your staff said never happened, particularly in the context of providing his expert analysis that is supposed to illuminate and enlighten us. It would be far more helpful to hear him explain what he has heard from NFL evaluators and so forth that makes him conclude there is a 75% chance Bridgewater falls due to his skin color.

 

[dehaven123]

What are the timeouts for? It's just discussion of a comment a staffer made on a podcast.

You've been a member here since 2004 and have to ask this question? This place gets modded...HARD. It's like North Korea in here.

You been around much lately? Other than this thread, no moderation to be found almost anywhere, except for egregious violations. It's nothing like the old days.

Oh you mean like when Joe and David actually gave a ####? When they were regular contributors? When the moderation team had clear instructions from the guys at the top who took the time to work the room and know the culture?

Yeah that's all changed. I'm glad FBG has become a gazillion dollar business because it's well earned. But, they've lost touch and the randomness of the moderation is a direct reflection of this. Waldman's flagrant distancing himself from making any comment to clarify or expand upon his thoughts from a week ago is another.

Hi Cobalt,

Sorry to hear you feel that way. I can assure you I care quite a bit. But you're of course right in that I haven't been posting to the boards of late. I hope to do better with that this year. As for moderation, I know the moderators try hard to be consistent but it is (and always has been) a challenge. If you see things out of line, please let us know and we'll to look. As for Matt, I know he was very hesitant to engage as things can spiral downward quickly sometimes. On the other hand, I understand the desire for him to clarify more. Bottom line is I care a lot about these forums and I want to keep them a place for positive discussion. Thanks for helping us do that.

J

If I was you, I'd distance myself from Waldman who has lost all credibility here. You will lose customers if you don't. His RSP is also not worth a dime knowing that his player evaluations include race in their appraisals.

count me in that camp. i cant get the rsp when i'd have to try and grasp the unwritten to asess its impact on the thoughts of the players being profiled. sorta sux, cause i liked it.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

What are the timeouts for? It's just discussion of a comment a staffer made on a podcast.

You've been a member here since 2004 and have to ask this question? This place gets modded...HARD. It's like North Korea in here.

You been around much lately? Other than this thread, no moderation to be found almost anywhere, except for egregious violations. It's nothing like the old days.

Oh you mean like when Joe and David actually gave a ####? When they were regular contributors? When the moderation team had clear instructions from the guys at the top who took the time to work the room and know the culture?

Yeah that's all changed. I'm glad FBG has become a gazillion dollar business because it's well earned. But, they've lost touch and the randomness of the moderation is a direct reflection of this. Waldman's flagrant distancing himself from making any comment to clarify or expand upon his thoughts from a week ago is another.

Hi Cobalt,

Sorry to hear you feel that way. I can assure you I care quite a bit. But you're of course right in that I haven't been posting to the boards of late. I hope to do better with that this year. As for moderation, I know the moderators try hard to be consistent but it is (and always has been) a challenge. If you see things out of line, please let us know and we'll to look. As for Matt, I know he was very hesitant to engage as things can spiral downward quickly sometimes. On the other hand, I understand the desire for him to clarify more. Bottom line is I care a lot about these forums and I want to keep them a place for positive discussion. Thanks for helping us do that.

J

If I was you, I'd distance myself from Waldman who has lost all credibility here. You will lose customers if you don't. His RSP is also not worth a dime knowing that his player evaluations include race in their appraisals.

count me in that camp. i cant get the rsp when i'd have to try and grasp the unwritten to asess its impact on the thoughts of the players being profiled. sorta sux, cause i liked it.

I wouldn't be surprised if even the most loyal customers not buy one until they comb through all of his old ones to look for any possible hidden social commentary that they didn't pay attention to previously. That's going to be a ton of reading.

 

[dehaven123]

What are the timeouts for? It's just discussion of a comment a staffer made on a podcast.

You've been a member here since 2004 and have to ask this question? This place gets modded...HARD. It's like North Korea in here.

You been around much lately? Other than this thread, no moderation to be found almost anywhere, except for egregious violations. It's nothing like the old days.

Oh you mean like when Joe and David actually gave a ####? When they were regular contributors? When the moderation team had clear instructions from the guys at the top who took the time to work the room and know the culture?

Yeah that's all changed. I'm glad FBG has become a gazillion dollar business because it's well earned. But, they've lost touch and the randomness of the moderation is a direct reflection of this. Waldman's flagrant distancing himself from making any comment to clarify or expand upon his thoughts from a week ago is another.

Hi Cobalt,

Sorry to hear you feel that way. I can assure you I care quite a bit. But you're of course right in that I haven't been posting to the boards of late. I hope to do better with that this year. As for moderation, I know the moderators try hard to be consistent but it is (and always has been) a challenge. If you see things out of line, please let us know and we'll to look. As for Matt, I know he was very hesitant to engage as things can spiral downward quickly sometimes. On the other hand, I understand the desire for him to clarify more. Bottom line is I care a lot about these forums and I want to keep them a place for positive discussion. Thanks for helping us do that.

J

If I was you, I'd distance myself from Waldman who has lost all credibility here. You will lose customers if you don't. His RSP is also not worth a dime knowing that his player evaluations include race in their appraisals.

count me in that camp. i cant get the rsp when i'd have to try and grasp the unwritten to asess its impact on the thoughts of the players being profiled. sorta sux, cause i liked it.

I wouldn't be surprised if even the most loyal customers not buy one until they comb through all of his old ones to look for any possible hidden social commentary that they didn't pay attention to previously. That's going to be a ton of reading.

i dont care about it that much. i will say that based on the initial comments and dismissive tone by him to legitimate posters, i do feel a bit foolish for past purchase. i do know that i should and will dismiss it as a tool going forward though.

 

[Black]

If I was you, I'd distance myself from Waldman who has lost all credibility here. You will lose customers if you don't. His RSP is also not worth a dime knowing that his player evaluations include race in their appraisals.

This is one of the things I don't get that has been posted a couple of times. Every person doing rankings is going to 'come at it' from their own perspective. Matt's has to do with the miles of film he watches (as all his detailed game notes are all included in the RSP).

This discussion was not how Matt is dropping or raising Teddy based on non-football-playing attributes. It was an opinion/observation that he believes Teddy will drop in the draft (or Teddy will go lower than what Matt projects based on his film study).

As far as how accurate Matt is, or if he 'goes with the consensus', I don't think he does. I started reading the RSP a few years back and find it immensely balanced and and excellent resource. When the RSP comes out, I compare it regularly with other podcasts, SharkPool rankings, and website rankings.

Last year his pre-draft RSP (based purely on film study, not landing spots), Matt had Keenan Allen ranked as his #2 WR. I couldn't find anyone ranking Keenan above DeAndre Hopkins (except Greg Cosell, in some interviews). Matt had Lacy as his #1, and this was when plenty of analysts were dropping him because of the toe surgery. There's your 2013 ROY and Offensive ROY. Go a little deeper, and you'll find guys you might not have even known...guys like Zac Stacy this year, Cobb from few years back.

If you are put off by his commentary, then you might not trust whatever bit of subjectiveness that exists when someone has to rank players that are not identical. But, I personally don't agree.

 

[cstu]

At evaluating technique, I don't think there's a better analyst. I do think he can over-value technique at times, such as Andre Roberts, but otherwise his evaluations are as good as it gets.

 

[jurb26]

Boy talk about a confusing thread. So now people are disassociating from Matt's evaluations because of this? What exactly does this topic have to do with his evaluations? He's comments were about him believing that racism exists in NFL evaluations and what he hypothesizes will happen to a player because of it. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with the body of work he produces on prospects. It seems some are alienating his work now because of spite. That's fine I suppose, but let's just call it what it is. I'm not seeing the connection here and I in no way, shape or form agree that NFL teams are racist in evaluation.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Daniel Jeremiah has dropped Bridgewater to #26 in his rankings.

 

[cobalt_27]

Boy talk about a confusing thread. So now people are disassociating from Matt's evaluations because of this? What exactly does this topic have to do with his evaluations? He's comments were about him believing that racism exists in NFL evaluations and what he hypothesizes will happen to a player because of it. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with the body of work he produces on prospects. It seems some are alienating his work now because of spite. That's fine I suppose, but let's just call it what it is. I'm not seeing the connection here and I in no way, shape or form agree that NFL teams are racist in evaluation.

Agree. Mostly independent issues. My concern is more that he's providing an opinion without any data, context, or support behind it. I don't know to what extent that shapes his own evaluations, but since he just drops a toxic comment like this without explanation (and happens to be antagonistic with the past 20 years of draft selections), it's hard to know. But, I choose to believe he watches tape unprejudiced, but just so happens to have a distorted view of the NFL selection process. And apparently feels strong enough to say something about it, yet flimsy enough in his own mind that he doesn't have the data or information or courage to back it up.

 

[Jersey Jammer]

So Matt, is Daniel Jeremiah a racist?

 

[Dr Oadi]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

It isn't about your views that racism exists, its about your views that racism affects the NFL draft when recent history has proven that statement to be very silly. Nice try trying to twist the argument around though lol

You are just a racism denier .

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Boy talk about a confusing thread. So now people are disassociating from Matt's evaluations because of this? What exactly does this topic have to do with his evaluations? He's comments were about him believing that racism exists in NFL evaluations and what he hypothesizes will happen to a player because of it. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with the body of work he produces on prospects. It seems some are alienating his work now because of spite. That's fine I suppose, but let's just call it what it is. I'm not seeing the connection here and I in no way, shape or form agree that NFL teams are racist in evaluation.

Matt's social views have nothing to do with his ability to scout players. Come on now. I don't agree, at all, that racism will effect Teddy Bridgewater's draft position, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to watching film and grading prospects.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I'm sure the people saying Waldman's RSP has no social views built in, no matter how subtle or unintentional are confident in that, despite not knowing for sure. It's rarely a good idea to dismiss ideas like that before confirming them.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Boy talk about a confusing thread. So now people are disassociating from Matt's evaluations because of this? What exactly does this topic have to do with his evaluations? He's comments were about him believing that racism exists in NFL evaluations and what he hypothesizes will happen to a player because of it. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with the body of work he produces on prospects. It seems some are alienating his work now because of spite. That's fine I suppose, but let's just call it what it is. I'm not seeing the connection here and I in no way, shape or form agree that NFL teams are racist in evaluation.

Matt's social views have nothing to do with his ability to scout players. Come on now. I don't agree, at all, that racism will effect Teddy Bridgewater's draft position, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to watching film and grading prospects.

The point is we don't know. Matt is clearly hellbent on pushing the racism card as evidenced by his post in this thread. If he is comfortable pointing fingers at people that get paid millions to evaluate players and draft them that they are influenced by race then I have no problem suggesting that race influences his rankings too.

 

[HellToupee]

Boy talk about a confusing thread. So now people are disassociating from Matt's evaluations because of this? What exactly does this topic have to do with his evaluations? He's comments were about him believing that racism exists in NFL evaluations and what he hypothesizes will happen to a player because of it. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with the body of work he produces on prospects. It seems some are alienating his work now because of spite. That's fine I suppose, but let's just call it what it is. I'm not seeing the connection here and I in no way, shape or form agree that NFL teams are racist in evaluation.

Matt's social views have nothing to do with his ability to scout players. Come on now. I don't agree, at all, that racism will effect Teddy Bridgewater's draft position, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to watching film and grading prospects.

The point is we don't know. Matt is clearly hellbent on pushing the racism card as evidenced by his post in this thread. If he is comfortable pointing fingers at people that get paid millions to evaluate players and draft them that they are influenced by race then I have no problem suggesting that race influences his rankings too.

I'm still amazed by the lack of black fantasy football writers , zero presence here at FBG & even the podcasts

 

[johnjohn]

Boy talk about a confusing thread. So now people are disassociating from Matt's evaluations because of this? What exactly does this topic have to do with his evaluations? He's comments were about him believing that racism exists in NFL evaluations and what he hypothesizes will happen to a player because of it. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with the body of work he produces on prospects. It seems some are alienating his work now because of spite. That's fine I suppose, but let's just call it what it is. I'm not seeing the connection here and I in no way, shape or form agree that NFL teams are racist in evaluation.

Matt's social views have nothing to do with his ability to scout players. Come on now. I don't agree, at all, that racism will effect Teddy Bridgewater's draft position, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to watching film and grading prospects.

The point is we don't know. Matt is clearly hellbent on pushing the racism card as evidenced by his post in this thread. If he is comfortable pointing fingers at people that get paid millions to evaluate players and draft them that they are influenced by race then I have no problem suggesting that race influences his rankings too.

I'm still amazed by the lack of black fantasy football writers , zero presence here at FBG & even the podcasts

are you saying its possible FBG is being racist by not hiring someone black or could it be something else? Lets say, hypothetically speaking FBG was being racist, would this be happening unconsciously or not

 

[dehaven123]

If I was you, I'd distance myself from Waldman who has lost all credibility here. You will lose customers if you don't. His RSP is also not worth a dime knowing that his player evaluations include race in their appraisals.

This is one of the things I don't get that has been posted a couple of times. Every person doing rankings is going to 'come at it' from their own perspective. Matt's has to do with the miles of film he watches (as all his detailed game notes are all included in the RSP).

This discussion was not how Matt is dropping or raising Teddy based on non-football-playing attributes. It was an opinion/observation that he believes Teddy will drop in the draft (or Teddy will go lower than what Matt projects based on his film study).

As far as how accurate Matt is, or if he 'goes with the consensus', I don't think he does. I started reading the RSP a few years back and find it immensely balanced and and excellent resource. When the RSP comes out, I compare it regularly with other podcasts, SharkPool rankings, and website rankings.

Last year his pre-draft RSP (based purely on film study, not landing spots), Matt had Keenan Allen ranked as his #2 WR. I couldn't find anyone ranking Keenan above DeAndre Hopkins (except Greg Cosell, in some interviews). Matt had Lacy as his #1, and this was when plenty of analysts were dropping him because of the toe surgery. There's your 2013 ROY and Offensive ROY. Go a little deeper, and you'll find guys you might not have even known...guys like Zac Stacy this year, Cobb from few years back.

If you are put off by his commentary, then you might not trust whatever bit of subjectiveness that exists when someone has to rank players that are not identical. But, I personally don't agree.

at this point, for me, its a principle based decision. the looseness of the initial comments, coupled with the blowoff response just doesn't sit right with me. i think ill get by in FF without the RSP just fine. as a consumer, its one of the only tools guys like me have to voice displeasure.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Boy talk about a confusing thread. So now people are disassociating from Matt's evaluations because of this? What exactly does this topic have to do with his evaluations? He's comments were about him believing that racism exists in NFL evaluations and what he hypothesizes will happen to a player because of it. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with the body of work he produces on prospects. It seems some are alienating his work now because of spite. That's fine I suppose, but let's just call it what it is. I'm not seeing the connection here and I in no way, shape or form agree that NFL teams are racist in evaluation.

Matt's social views have nothing to do with his ability to scout players. Come on now. I don't agree, at all, that racism will effect Teddy Bridgewater's draft position, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to watching film and grading prospects.

The point is we don't know. Matt is clearly hellbent on pushing the racism card as evidenced by his post in this thread. If he is comfortable pointing fingers at people that get paid millions to evaluate players and draft them that they are influenced by race then I have no problem suggesting that race influences his rankings too.

I'm still amazed by the lack of black fantasy football writers , zero presence here at FBG & even the podcasts

are you saying its possible FBG is being racist by not hiring someone black or could it be something else? Lets say, hypothetically speaking FBG was being racist, would this be happening unconsciously or not

You have a bunch of white people talking about owning mostly black people. Fantasy Football is the real racist here.

 

[GridironMenace]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

So you were purposely trying to be provocative? That wasn't smart as it backfired on you pretty badly. It's going to backfire on your wallet and credibility as well, I'm afraid.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

Potential. That's the problem with your ilk. You have zero proof that your comment is based on anything other than race baiting BS. We dislike your view not because we are saying that racism doesn't exist, we hate your view because it's completely baseless, unfactual and laced with hateful rhetoric in order to propagate a stereotype that doesn't need to be propagated where it doesn't belong. It CLEARLY doesn't belong here. You injected it in here on purpose. You owe us all an apology.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

1) Mystery conversations with "people" in the NFL? Really? Are you really trying to say that there are people in the NFL that have specific documented examples of racism coming from the highest levels, whom haven't ratted those executives out yet? Are you really saying that you are the sole lucky person for those NFL "people" to talk to and that is why this information hasn't gotten out? Or are you saying that you aren't the only one that "knows" and it's just one big racist conspiracy? Are we to believe that you have knowledge of racist activity and haven't gone to the media to report it yourself? What better way to make yourself famous and move on from FBG to the "big-time"? Knowing how serious you believe this nonsense I find it impossible to believe that you would help hide those proven racist tendencies by the white ownership elite. Nice theory bro. Tell your story walkin'!

2) Your own personal experiences? Has your skin color changed in the last 48 hours?

3) Discussions who you have discussed this topic with in detail. Now THAT I believe. I also believe you need to expand your friends and their political views of the world.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

are you saying its possible FBG is being racist by not hiring someone black or could it be something else? Lets say, hypothetically speaking FBG was being racist, would this be happening unconsciously or not

For what it's worth, when FBG hired me they had no idea whether I was white or black. They'd never met me. I was just a username on the internet. I believe the same is true for nearly every other FBG staffer.

 

[cobalt_27]

This is the first time I've come to this thread. It will be the last time. I haven't looked at much of the thread. I've been told that a thread exists, but I knew ahead of time that my statement about Bridgewater and forms of racism that exist in society will elicit criticism and praise -- and it has.

You have your right to your criticism of my take just as I have the right to believe that anyone who doesn't see the potential for racism in this situation is wrong. If you dislike like my views that racism exists and that Bridgewater's pre-draft process exhibits some unintentional racial elements as I stated on the podcast it's your right to feel that way.

However, it's useless to debate this subject here with you. You will continue to discuss why you believe my points are wrong and I will continue believe in what I stated based on my own personal experiences, conversations with people in the NFL, and experiences of those around me whom I've discussed this topic with in detail.

Matt, all I think folks are looking for is an explanation of how the potential for racism translates to Bridgewater when it ostensibly hasn't for any black quarterback drafted in the past 20 years.

You position yourself as an insider and one who can distill information in a way that we can't. That is why you charge--and we pay you--money. Your product, your content, your job, rest on the foundation that you have insights that we do not have. You dropped the "R" bomb, and it is not unreasonable to expect that you provide some context. You do this for all of your other opinions regarding college prospects This is certainly deserves more than what you have provided here as a response.

 

[GridironMenace]

are you saying its possible FBG is being racist by not hiring someone black or could it be something else? Lets say, hypothetically speaking FBG was being racist, would this be happening unconsciously or not

For what it's worth, when FBG hired me they had no idea whether I was white or black. They'd never met me. I was just a username on the internet. I believe the same is true for nearly every other FBG staffer.

So what exactly are you saying, that black people can't write well enough on a fantasy football website to be member/contributor/employee? For shame...