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

[Ramblin Wreck]

So Waldman = Jerry Springer of FBG writers?

 

[Sabertooth]

I like Waldman. I like listening to the podcasts while I cut grass in the summer and all that, but this just seems like an attention seeking statement by him.

 

[Black]

I like Waldman. I like listening to the podcasts while I cut grass in the summer and all that, but this just seems like an attention seeking statement by him.

I don't think it was. Knowing Matt's work, it is likely nothing of the sort.

I believe after watching hours and hours of his #1 QB prospect that he had to wonder why in the world this guy was being nitpicked (by the Media) and then suggested that the end result would be him dropping in the draft.

 

[NCCommish]

After that Pro Day where he sprayed balls all over the field even though it was a scripted playset I think he will fall. But it will be because when the heat was on he wilted not his skin color.

 

[lsutigers]

I believe after watching hours and hours of his #1 QB prospect that he had to wonder why in the world this guy was being nitpicked (by the Media) and then suggested that the end result would be him dropping in the draft.

I would have to say Black's thoughts are pretty much /topic, am i right?

 

[Donsmith753]

Isn't it simply that he's being nitpicked because he's been the consensus number 1 for a while and that's what happens to consensus number 1's that go back to school...

 

[Jersey Jammer]

My thoughts on all this - being called a racist is one of the ugliest things that can be said of you, so if you're going to allege someone is a racist, or racism is going into your thinking about something, you damn well better have good proof. I don't see that level of proof here - just idle speculation that these GMs must be racist cause they don't like Teddy. it's easy to throw out the allegation resulting in ruining people's reputation without having a shred of evidence to substantiate what you're alleging.

 

[Somebody]

I haven't read this entire thread, but has Waldman posted here to elaborate on his reasoning?

 

[GregR]

...
Like I said, people have a knee jerk reaction to the word "racism". They treat it like those involved are being accused of having an intent to put another race down. Much of this thread has treated it like Waldman is suggesting people are intentionally acting out of racist motivations. Both the OP's summary of what Waldman said, and the actual transcript, show that isn't the case.

That anyone thinks my bringing up unconscious prejudices is moving the thread to some other topic of discussion is good evidence of just how bad of a knee jerk reaction the thread has been. People don't even know what the actual statements were that are being debated.

You don't understand why some are bothered by accusations of "indirect" racism which conveniently cannot be disproven? So it is ok to say people don't know and don't intend to put another race down; however the really smart thinking people know that is exactly what "they" are doing. IMHO that is wrong and that has a lot to do with the "knee jerk" reaction.

I understand people getting bothered at completely baseless accusations. Those made for publicity, personal gain, etc. We should be bothered by those. They cause people to get sick of the topic and turn a deaf ear when there actually are real issues of racism or prejudice happening.

Matt doesn't strike me as someone who would do that. I have only met him a few times plus reading his writing, but find him someone that I'd tend to give the benefit to until I had reason not to.

I only have as much to go on here as the rest of you, but when I read it, I suspected there might have been a string of situations where Matt pursued more detail after negative comments about Bridgewater (or other players) and found the people making them couldn't supply much supporting rationale. Much like the example that was then shared. Leaving one to have to speculate why they were negative then. If he's seeing that more for black players than white, it would be pretty hard to not suspect some form of prejudice going on as at least one possibility. Again though, I don't know what all has led to his statement so all I can do is speculate, but I'd give Matt the benefit of the doubt until I know more.

Getting back around to the being bothered by it, I will say I think unconscious prejudice is very prevalent. It is probably a rare person who doesn't have it to some degree. Unless Matt's comments were directed at anyone on the board here personally, I don't think the level of being personally bothered that is displayed here is justified, no. Agree or disagree, fine.

FWIW, I don't think many, if not most who see racism everywhere do it to personally harm people (though some do); I think that is how they see the world, they are a hammer and everything is a nail.

Unconscious prejudice sounds an awful lot like survival instincts baked into our dna, but getting back to what bothers some. I for one feel 100 times out of 100, NFL teams will take the player they think gives them the best chance to win, which is the way it should be. I assume you would agree with that last statement? So maybe what you and others are saying is the judgment of nfl teams even in 2014 is so clouded by unconscious prejudice they can't fairly evaluate a black qb? Is that basically what you are saying? If so I think there is a lot of evidence to the contrary and we can agree to disagree.

As for people taking exception to unsubstantiated accusations of racism, it may have a lot to do with the current political climate we are in. For example, many people who believe in limited government are now commonly labelled as racist with nary a shred of any real evidence to substantiate it. I think many people are now very sensitive to that sort of thing.

No hard feelings I hope, again I think we can agree to disagree

No hard feelings at all.

"Unconscious prejudice sounds an awful lot like survival instincts baked into our dna, but getting back to what bothers some. I for one feel 100 times out of 100, NFL teams will take the player they think gives them the best chance to win, which is the way it should be. I assume you would agree with that last statement?"

I agree with you that NFL teams take the player they think gives them the best chance to win every time. I would be surprised if Matt doesn't agree with us, too.

"So maybe what you and others are saying is the judgment of nfl teams even in 2014 is so clouded by unconscious prejudice they can't fairly evaluate a black qb? Is that basically what you are saying?"

I'm saying it is clear that is what Matt said, but too many arguments and reactions in the thread have been as if Matt said it was intentional racism. My personal view? I don't agree with Waldman that there's a 75% chance Bridgewater falls. I'm not clear how much Waldman indicated Bridgewater falling would be due to unconscious discrimination vs other reasons, but I'll say I don't think unconscious racism will be the primary reason if he does fall. So no, I'm not saying the above myself. Though I believe unconscious discrimination is everywhere, including in the NFL. I'm not willing to say it goes to the extent he's saying.

I'm just tired of seeing arguments that imply he said something he didn't, and tear him apart as if he called the NFL a bunch of intentional racists when he didn't. He stated his position clearly: "...don’t get me wrong, is I don’t think it’s blatant racism, I think what it is, is that it’s a form of not even realizing that they’re doing it, you know they’re finding ways to nitpick the way that he is".

Take what we just discussed, about whether NFL teams take the player they think gives them the best chance to win. I know you're bringing it up to clarify, which is fine. But it's been used several times before this as an argument Waldman is wrong. There is no disconnect between teams not realizing they are nitpicking based on race like Matt said, and taking the player they think gives them the best chance to win. It doesn't make sense as an argument against what Waldman said. It would make sense if someone said intentional racism is going on. But if the NFL was doing what Waldman said, they still would be taking the player they think is best. Someone who walks into the thread and never heard or read the transcript of Waldman's statements would have every reason to believe he said intentional racism was going on, because so many people are making arguments that only make sense if that was the case.

Agree or disagree with Matt as you will. But lets discuss what he actually said, and not just read the thread title and arguments from others who imply his statement was far more incendiary and offensive than what was said.

 

[GregR]

Isn't it simply that he's being nitpicked because he's been the consensus number 1 for a while and that's what happens to consensus number 1's that go back to school...

I have no clue how much of Matt's statement was built on talking to NFL people vs talking to or hearing people in the media. But as far as the media, I think the media spin cycle would definitely play a role. It's obvious from looking at the history of people like Tebow, Terrel Owens, etc, that the media know what drives page hits and will find whatever content they can to get more. Clowney, Bridgewater, Bortles, Manziel... those guys draw readers and viewers. You can only say so much positive stuff before it's exhausted, so then they start turning to the negative for a fresh angle to draw more readers.

Not to mention how much some people do enjoy tearing down anyone viewed as being on top.

Edit to add: Of course, NFL GMs and coaches don't have that aspect. You'd hope they just have confidence in their own evaluations and not be drawn in by what the media says. But it wouldn't be against human nature to let what you hear color your thoughts to some extent.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

McShay has a 4th round grade on Derek Carr. Obviously he's racist against white QBs

 

[rct]

My thoughts on all this - being called a racist is one of the ugliest things that can be said of you, so if you're going to allege someone is a racist, or racism is going into your thinking about something, you damn well better have good proof. I don't see that level of proof here - just idle speculation that these GMs must be racist cause they don't like Teddy. it's easy to throw out the allegation resulting in ruining people's reputation without having a shred of evidence to substantiate what you're alleging.

Maybe I missed something here, but did Waldman mention any specific names? If not, then he can't be ruining anyone's reputation, unless you are talking about all 32 GMs collectively (and I don't think Waldman's status as a draft scout carries that much clout as far as public opinion is concerned that the entire league will be branded as racists).

 

[maf005]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

 

[lsutigers]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

Not to hijack the thread but I believe Michael Sam's draft stock took a hit post season when he was revealed as a slowish DE/OLB tweener that lacks burst and has average hip movement.

 

[BassNBrew]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

Not to hijack the thread but I believe Michael Sam's draft stock took a hit post season when he was revealed as a slowish DE/OLB tweener that lacks burst and has average hip movement.

And didn't it go back up after his pro day?

 

[Jersey Jammer]

My thoughts on all this - being called a racist is one of the ugliest things that can be said of you, so if you're going to allege someone is a racist, or racism is going into your thinking about something, you damn well better have good proof. I don't see that level of proof here - just idle speculation that these GMs must be racist cause they don't like Teddy. it's easy to throw out the allegation resulting in ruining people's reputation without having a shred of evidence to substantiate what you're alleging.

Maybe I missed something here, but did Waldman mention any specific names? If not, then he can't be ruining anyone's reputation, unless you are talking about all 32 GMs collectively (and I don't think Waldman's status as a draft scout carries that much clout as far as public opinion is concerned that the entire league will be branded as racists).

No he didn't mention specific names, but he should have. That's my point. If you have specific evidence someone is a racist, state the proof and name names. instead, he brands an entire class of people (GMs) as racist because some of them have the temerity to not draft him as high as Waldman thinks they should. Of course GMs will never see this nor hear it. I'm making a broader point - the most vicious things you can say of someone - he or she is a racist, sexist, etc... are thrown about casually thus forcing the recipient to try and prove a negative. It's unfair and shouldn't be done. If a specific GM is a racist state who it is and share the evidence. If true I'd be the first person to condemn him.

 

[maf005]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

Not to hijack the thread but I believe Michael Sam's draft stock took a hit post season when he was revealed as a slowish DE/OLB tweener that lacks burst and has average hip movement.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/cbs-dropped-michael-sam-70-spots-draft-rankings-173605773--nfl.html

Sam's scenario supports Waldman's take that the prospect in question will be more highly scrutinized than a 'normal' prospect. Read some of the comments that team's were saying to justify Sam's drop. It was all football related, yet the timing clearly coincides with Sam coming out. Same thing with Jason Collins..

Which is more likely given the timing of these ranking updates?

A: Sam's draft stock was negatively impacted by coming out as gay

B: Sam's draft stock was negatively impacted because he is slow and has average hip movement

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I haven't seen what Matt actually said, but I think it's been pretty well established for awhile now that color is irrelevant to the NFL if the player has the ability, including drafting at the QB position. If he did say that, he's simply wrong.

I'm not so sure.

Manuel and Bortles are very similar yet Manuel fell to #16 last year and Bortles is being touted as the #1 pick.

Girlfriend is hotter. Worth the move up 15 picks.

 

[PatsWillWin]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

Not to hijack the thread but I believe Michael Sam's draft stock took a hit post season when he was revealed as a slowish DE/OLB tweener that lacks burst and has average hip movement.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/cbs-dropped-michael-sam-70-spots-draft-rankings-173605773--nfl.html

Sam's scenario supports Waldman's take that the prospect in question will be more highly scrutinized than a 'normal' prospect. Read some of the comments that team's were saying to justify Sam's drop. It was all football related, yet the timing clearly coincides with Sam coming out. Same thing with Jason Collins..

Which is more likely given the timing of these ranking updates?

A: Sam's draft stock was negatively impacted by coming out as gay

B: Sam's draft stock was negatively impacted because he is slow and has average hip movement

Again, you're talking about the media. Waldman wasn't.

 

[maf005]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

Not to hijack the thread but I believe Michael Sam's draft stock took a hit post season when he was revealed as a slowish DE/OLB tweener that lacks burst and has average hip movement.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/cbs-dropped-michael-sam-70-spots-draft-rankings-173605773--nfl.html

Sam's scenario supports Waldman's take that the prospect in question will be more highly scrutinized than a 'normal' prospect. Read some of the comments that team's were saying to justify Sam's drop. It was all football related, yet the timing clearly coincides with Sam coming out. Same thing with Jason Collins..

Which is more likely given the timing of these ranking updates?

A: Sam's draft stock was negatively impacted by coming out as gay

B: Sam's draft stock was negatively impacted because he is slow and has average hip movement

Again, you're talking about the media. Waldman wasn't.

directly from the story

Sports Illustrated's Peter King caused some waves when he quoted an anonymous GM saying he doesn't think Sam will be drafted. The GM told King that it was because he doesn't think Sam is a very good player

If Sam falls significantly in the draft, his announcement that he is gay will be blamed, whether NFL teams have legitimate concerns about his position or not. An SI.com story quoting eight anonymous NFL coaches and personnel men as saying Sam's announcement will cause him to slip in the draft won't help that perception.

Did you even read the article?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I like his phrasing when he said black-skinned black man.

 

[buck naked]

You can tell we are in a dead period for NFL news when a so-called "Shark Pool" thread like this reaches 5 pages.

 

[ghostguy123]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

They also want to avoid media firestorms and distractions.

Not much of a media firestorm for players of different races.

The Sam case is a completely different issue to racism.

 

[cobalt_27]

After that Pro Day where he sprayed balls all over the field even though it was a scripted playset I think he will fall. But it will be because when the heat was on he wilted not his skin color.

Totally agree. But, that won't stop Waldman and others from partaking in a lazy social commentary about racism.

 

[maf005]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

They also want to avoid media firestorms and distractions.

Not much of a media firestorm for players of different races.

The Sam case is a completely different issue to racism.

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

 

[Jersey Jammer]

...
Like I said, people have a knee jerk reaction to the word "racism". They treat it like those involved are being accused of having an intent to put another race down. Much of this thread has treated it like Waldman is suggesting people are intentionally acting out of racist motivations. Both the OP's summary of what Waldman said, and the actual transcript, show that isn't the case.

That anyone thinks my bringing up unconscious prejudices is moving the thread to some other topic of discussion is good evidence of just how bad of a knee jerk reaction the thread has been. People don't even know what the actual statements were that are being debated.

You don't understand why some are bothered by accusations of "indirect" racism which conveniently cannot be disproven? So it is ok to say people don't know and don't intend to put another race down; however the really smart thinking people know that is exactly what "they" are doing. IMHO that is wrong and that has a lot to do with the "knee jerk" reaction.

I understand people getting bothered at completely baseless accusations. Those made for publicity, personal gain, etc. We should be bothered by those. They cause people to get sick of the topic and turn a deaf ear when there actually are real issues of racism or prejudice happening.

Matt doesn't strike me as someone who would do that. I have only met him a few times plus reading his writing, but find him someone that I'd tend to give the benefit to until I had reason not to.

I only have as much to go on here as the rest of you, but when I read it, I suspected there might have been a string of situations where Matt pursued more detail after negative comments about Bridgewater (or other players) and found the people making them couldn't supply much supporting rationale. Much like the example that was then shared. Leaving one to have to speculate why they were negative then. If he's seeing that more for black players than white, it would be pretty hard to not suspect some form of prejudice going on as at least one possibility. Again though, I don't know what all has led to his statement so all I can do is speculate, but I'd give Matt the benefit of the doubt until I know more.

Getting back around to the being bothered by it, I will say I think unconscious prejudice is very prevalent. It is probably a rare person who doesn't have it to some degree. Unless Matt's comments were directed at anyone on the board here personally, I don't think the level of being personally bothered that is displayed here is justified, no. Agree or disagree, fine.

FWIW, I don't think many, if not most who see racism everywhere do it to personally harm people (though some do); I think that is how they see the world, they are a hammer and everything is a nail.

Unconscious prejudice sounds an awful lot like survival instincts baked into our dna, but getting back to what bothers some. I for one feel 100 times out of 100, NFL teams will take the player they think gives them the best chance to win, which is the way it should be. I assume you would agree with that last statement? So maybe what you and others are saying is the judgment of nfl teams even in 2014 is so clouded by unconscious prejudice they can't fairly evaluate a black qb? Is that basically what you are saying? If so I think there is a lot of evidence to the contrary and we can agree to disagree.

As for people taking exception to unsubstantiated accusations of racism, it may have a lot to do with the current political climate we are in. For example, many people who believe in limited government are now commonly labelled as racist with nary a shred of any real evidence to substantiate it. I think many people are now very sensitive to that sort of thing.

No hard feelings I hope, again I think we can agree to disagree

No hard feelings at all.

"Unconscious prejudice sounds an awful lot like survival instincts baked into our dna, but getting back to what bothers some. I for one feel 100 times out of 100, NFL teams will take the player they think gives them the best chance to win, which is the way it should be. I assume you would agree with that last statement?"

I agree with you that NFL teams take the player they think gives them the best chance to win every time. I would be surprised if Matt doesn't agree with us, too.

"So maybe what you and others are saying is the judgment of nfl teams even in 2014 is so clouded by unconscious prejudice they can't fairly evaluate a black qb? Is that basically what you are saying?"

I'm saying it is clear that is what Matt said, but too many arguments and reactions in the thread have been as if Matt said it was intentional racism. My personal view? I don't agree with Waldman that there's a 75% chance Bridgewater falls. I'm not clear how much Waldman indicated Bridgewater falling would be due to unconscious discrimination vs other reasons, but I'll say I don't think unconscious racism will be the primary reason if he does fall. So no, I'm not saying the above myself. Though I believe unconscious discrimination is everywhere, including in the NFL. I'm not willing to say it goes to the extent he's saying.

I'm just tired of seeing arguments that imply he said something he didn't, and tear him apart as if he called the NFL a bunch of intentional racists when he didn't. He stated his position clearly: "...don’t get me wrong, is I don’t think it’s blatant racism, I think what it is, is that it’s a form of not even realizing that they’re doing it, you know they’re finding ways to nitpick the way that he is".

Take what we just discussed, about whether NFL teams take the player they think gives them the best chance to win. I know you're bringing it up to clarify, which is fine. But it's been used several times before this as an argument Waldman is wrong. There is no disconnect between teams not realizing they are nitpicking based on race like Matt said, and taking the player they think gives them the best chance to win. It doesn't make sense as an argument against what Waldman said. It would make sense if someone said intentional racism is going on. But if the NFL was doing what Waldman said, they still would be taking the player they think is best. Someone who walks into the thread and never heard or read the transcript of Waldman's statements would have every reason to believe he said intentional racism was going on, because so many people are making arguments that only make sense if that was the case.

Agree or disagree with Matt as you will. But lets discuss what he actually said, and not just read the thread title and arguments from others who imply his statement was far more incendiary and offensive than what was said.

Who isn't reading what he said? Perhaps you aren't. "I can’t stand listening to it anymore - it’s the fact that he’s black. It’s the fact that he’s a black-skinned black man is that he is someone that they do not want to look at it that way" And we're the incendiary ones? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Oops! Is that racist too? The race arbiters at FBG will need to decide.

 

[monk]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

What ????? I thought it dropped because he was black????

But seriously ... Didn't his 4.91 forty , horrifying bench press and vertical have something to do with the drop?

 

[ghostguy123]

What about the fact that Michael Sam's draft stock too a significant hit when he came out?

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

They also want to avoid media firestorms and distractions.

Not much of a media firestorm for players of different races.

The Sam case is a completely different issue to racism.

Clearly that shows GMs are not purely interested in on-the-field utility like has been repeatedly proposed in this thread

NFL teams absolutely DO look at more than just on field play. This is very obvious.

However, race is not one of those factors.

Being an idiot and/or bringing a ton of negative or unwanted/excessive publicity is definitely one of those factors.

 

[Kevrunner]

During the Audible podcast in question, even before Matt made his controversial comments, he said something that caught me by surprise at just before the 26:00 minute mark, Bloom is making some unflattering comments regarding rookie QB A.J. McCarron and Matt makes a comment, real quick, kinda of hard to hear, Bloom just blows it off and doesn't even acknowledge it. If you are interested just go back and listen and see if you hear what I think he said, it is nothing terrible, just a prelude to what was going to be said later.

 

[Davej626]

I haven't even finished the podcast yet, but I will rate it as disappointing for Audible standards. That's fine. Every show has a down episode. I just didn't expect it when I heard that Cecil, Sig, Gene and Matt were on this one.

The only thing that can save this episode, at this point (I'm at the 42 min mark), is if Cecil talks more about how Denver feels about this. That always bring up the standards.

 

[johnjohn]

some could think Waldman is a bit of a coward to throw out the racist card so easily and not even show up to the thread when called out on it. Instead, bloom came in here talking about how this is all happening on a sub-conscious level, so we are wrong and just don't know it. LOL

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

...
Like I said, people have a knee jerk reaction to the word "racism". They treat it like those involved are being accused of having an intent to put another race down. Much of this thread has treated it like Waldman is suggesting people are intentionally acting out of racist motivations. Both the OP's summary of what Waldman said, and the actual transcript, show that isn't the case.

That anyone thinks my bringing up unconscious prejudices is moving the thread to some other topic of discussion is good evidence of just how bad of a knee jerk reaction the thread has been. People don't even know what the actual statements were that are being debated.

You don't understand why some are bothered by accusations of "indirect" racism which conveniently cannot be disproven? So it is ok to say people don't know and don't intend to put another race down; however the really smart thinking people know that is exactly what "they" are doing. IMHO that is wrong and that has a lot to do with the "knee jerk" reaction.

I understand people getting bothered at completely baseless accusations. Those made for publicity, personal gain, etc. We should be bothered by those. They cause people to get sick of the topic and turn a deaf ear when there actually are real issues of racism or prejudice happening.

Matt doesn't strike me as someone who would do that. I have only met him a few times plus reading his writing, but find him someone that I'd tend to give the benefit to until I had reason not to.

I only have as much to go on here as the rest of you, but when I read it, I suspected there might have been a string of situations where Matt pursued more detail after negative comments about Bridgewater (or other players) and found the people making them couldn't supply much supporting rationale. Much like the example that was then shared. Leaving one to have to speculate why they were negative then. If he's seeing that more for black players than white, it would be pretty hard to not suspect some form of prejudice going on as at least one possibility. Again though, I don't know what all has led to his statement so all I can do is speculate, but I'd give Matt the benefit of the doubt until I know more.

Getting back around to the being bothered by it, I will say I think unconscious prejudice is very prevalent. It is probably a rare person who doesn't have it to some degree. Unless Matt's comments were directed at anyone on the board here personally, I don't think the level of being personally bothered that is displayed here is justified, no. Agree or disagree, fine.

FWIW, I don't think many, if not most who see racism everywhere do it to personally harm people (though some do); I think that is how they see the world, they are a hammer and everything is a nail.

Unconscious prejudice sounds an awful lot like survival instincts baked into our dna, but getting back to what bothers some. I for one feel 100 times out of 100, NFL teams will take the player they think gives them the best chance to win, which is the way it should be. I assume you would agree with that last statement? So maybe what you and others are saying is the judgment of nfl teams even in 2014 is so clouded by unconscious prejudice they can't fairly evaluate a black qb? Is that basically what you are saying? If so I think there is a lot of evidence to the contrary and we can agree to disagree.

As for people taking exception to unsubstantiated accusations of racism, it may have a lot to do with the current political climate we are in. For example, many people who believe in limited government are now commonly labelled as racist with nary a shred of any real evidence to substantiate it. I think many people are now very sensitive to that sort of thing.

No hard feelings I hope, again I think we can agree to disagree

No hard feelings at all.

"Unconscious prejudice sounds an awful lot like survival instincts baked into our dna, but getting back to what bothers some. I for one feel 100 times out of 100, NFL teams will take the player they think gives them the best chance to win, which is the way it should be. I assume you would agree with that last statement?"

I agree with you that NFL teams take the player they think gives them the best chance to win every time. I would be surprised if Matt doesn't agree with us, too.

"So maybe what you and others are saying is the judgment of nfl teams even in 2014 is so clouded by unconscious prejudice they can't fairly evaluate a black qb? Is that basically what you are saying?"

I'm saying it is clear that is what Matt said, but too many arguments and reactions in the thread have been as if Matt said it was intentional racism. My personal view? I don't agree with Waldman that there's a 75% chance Bridgewater falls. I'm not clear how much Waldman indicated Bridgewater falling would be due to unconscious discrimination vs other reasons, but I'll say I don't think unconscious racism will be the primary reason if he does fall. So no, I'm not saying the above myself. Though I believe unconscious discrimination is everywhere, including in the NFL. I'm not willing to say it goes to the extent he's saying.

I'm just tired of seeing arguments that imply he said something he didn't, and tear him apart as if he called the NFL a bunch of intentional racists when he didn't. He stated his position clearly: "...don’t get me wrong, is I don’t think it’s blatant racism, I think what it is, is that it’s a form of not even realizing that they’re doing it, you know they’re finding ways to nitpick the way that he is".

Take what we just discussed, about whether NFL teams take the player they think gives them the best chance to win. I know you're bringing it up to clarify, which is fine. But it's been used several times before this as an argument Waldman is wrong. There is no disconnect between teams not realizing they are nitpicking based on race like Matt said, and taking the player they think gives them the best chance to win. It doesn't make sense as an argument against what Waldman said. It would make sense if someone said intentional racism is going on. But if the NFL was doing what Waldman said, they still would be taking the player they think is best. Someone who walks into the thread and never heard or read the transcript of Waldman's statements would have every reason to believe he said intentional racism was going on, because so many people are making arguments that only make sense if that was the case.

Agree or disagree with Matt as you will. But lets discuss what he actually said, and not just read the thread title and arguments from others who imply his statement was far more incendiary and offensive than what was said.

Ok, everyone seems to agree that 100 times out of 100 times, nfl teams will take the player they think will help them the most.

The disagreement concerns the nfls unconscious racism and the belief by some that virtually everyone is an unconscious racist (rare not to be). Many people feel that is elitist and they take offense in basically being told "hey your a racist, your just too stupid to realize it". You may feel that is much less offensive than being accused of blatant racism, but at least you can defend yourself against something blatant. Much like the way global warming morphed into climate change, now if it rains it is climate change, if it doesn't rain it is climate change, if it is hot it is climate change, if it is cold it is climate change and on and on. Like unconscious racism, you can't disprove it and many feel that is no accident; that is just the way the elitists want it. I know many will hate the analogy, but ftr, I would bet a weeks salary that a large majority of people who strongly believe in unconscious racism, also strongly believe in agw. Elitists love theories you can't disprove (that is why they create them )

FWIW, I think many are confusing human nature and basic instincts (fear of the unknown etc) and labelling it as racism; when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Black]

Agree with it or not, I think if you are interested in what was said, you should listen to the podcast, because it's been distorted here and taken out of context.

I disagree that a 'racist' card was thrown. There is nothing cowardly about posing an opinion. I don't think Matt needs to defend his comments, because he explained them when he said them. If he believes that race or prejudice can influence the media and/or decision makers in the Draft, that is just his opinion. You are not obliged to agree.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Agree with it or not, I think if you are interested in what was said, you should listen to the podcast, because it's been distorted here and taken out of context.

I disagree that a 'racist' card was thrown. There is nothing cowardly about posing an opinion. I don't think Matt needs to defend his comments, because he explained them when he said them. If he believes that race or prejudice can influence the media and/or decision makers in the Draft, that is just his opinion. You are not obliged to agree.

it's lazy and unintelligent to suggest race plays a factor in a QB falling in the draft when there is evidence that shows that to be false. You are not obliged to agree with that either.

 

[Jersey Jammer]

Agree with it or not, I think if you are interested in what was said, you should listen to the podcast, because it's been distorted here and taken out of context.

I disagree that a 'racist' card was thrown. There is nothing cowardly about posing an opinion. I don't think Matt needs to defend his comments, because he explained them when he said them. If he believes that race or prejudice can influence the media and/or decision makers in the Draft, that is just his opinion. You are not obliged to agree.

Did you read what he said? He threw the racist card out there about five times. And of course he's entitled to his opinion - as is everyone else in this thread - about 90% of whom see a race baiter who labels people with one of the most vile labels imaginable without a shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[Black]

Agree with it or not, I think if you are interested in what was said, you should listen to the podcast, because it's been distorted here and taken out of context.

I disagree that a 'racist' card was thrown. There is nothing cowardly about posing an opinion. I don't think Matt needs to defend his comments, because he explained them when he said them. If he believes that race or prejudice can influence the media and/or decision makers in the Draft, that is just his opinion. You are not obliged to agree.

Did you read what he said? He threw the racist card out there about five times. And of course he's entitled to his opinion - as is everyone else in this thread - about 90% of whom see a race baiter who labels people with one of the most vile labels imaginable without a shred of evidence to back it up.

I did not read what he said. I listened to a 2 hour podcast and all of the dialogue leading up to and including the quote. I explained in a long post what I thought of the quote and my thoughts around the quote.

What does Matt have to gain by 'playing the race card'? He's not black, and he's not losing a bet that Teddy will be a top 10 QB.

I think you don't need 'proof' to know that there is racism in our society, and he is simply suggesting that could be having an effect on Teddy's draft stock. It is one man's opinion. He is simply stating an opinion that you don't agree with.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Agree with it or not, I think if you are interested in what was said, you should listen to the podcast, because it's been distorted here and taken out of context.

I disagree that a 'racist' card was thrown. There is nothing cowardly about posing an opinion. I don't think Matt needs to defend his comments, because he explained them when he said them. If he believes that race or prejudice can influence the media and/or decision makers in the Draft, that is just his opinion. You are not obliged to agree.

Did you read what he said? He threw the racist card out there about five times. And of course he's entitled to his opinion - as is everyone else in this thread - about 90% of whom see a race baiter who labels people with one of the most vile labels imaginable without a shred of evidence to back it up.

I did not read what he said. I listened to a 2 hour podcast and all of the dialogue leading up to and including the quote. I explained in a long post what I thought of the quote and my thoughts around the quote.

What does Matt have to gain by 'playing the race card'? He's not black, and he's not losing a bet that Teddy will be a top 10 QB.

I think you don't need 'proof' to know that there is racism in our society, and he is simply suggesting that could be having an effect on Teddy's draft stock. It is one man's opinion. He is simply stating an opinion that you don't agree with.

 

[steveski]

If this was golf or water polo, I'd believe it.

 

[Jersey Jammer]

Agree with it or not, I think if you are interested in what was said, you should listen to the podcast, because it's been distorted here and taken out of context.

I disagree that a 'racist' card was thrown. There is nothing cowardly about posing an opinion. I don't think Matt needs to defend his comments, because he explained them when he said them. If he believes that race or prejudice can influence the media and/or decision makers in the Draft, that is just his opinion. You are not obliged to agree.

Did you read what he said? He threw the racist card out there about five times. And of course he's entitled to his opinion - as is everyone else in this thread - about 90% of whom see a race baiter who labels people with one of the most vile labels imaginable without a shred of evidence to back it up.

I did not read what he said. I listened to a 2 hour podcast and all of the dialogue leading up to and including the quote. I explained in a long post what I thought of the quote and my thoughts around the quote.

What does Matt have to gain by 'playing the race card'? He's not black, and he's not losing a bet that Teddy will be a top 10 QB.

I think you don't need 'proof' to know that there is racism in our society, and he is simply suggesting that could be having an effect on Teddy's draft stock. It is one man's opinion. He is simply stating an opinion that you don't agree with.

Let me try this one more time: Yes, racism exists. Duh. But since it's one of the most vile things you can be accused of you damn well better have some proof before you allege a specific individual is a racist. Matt accused the GMs of racism without having proof. Discussing racism in society is one thing. Making a specific allegation about an individual or a small group of individuals without proof is unacceptable. He said: "It's because he's black"....he won't be drafted as a top 10 QB. That's playing the race card.

 

[Jersey Jammer]

....and here's the irony - those that profess to be outraged at those who stereotype others (GMs that don't like black QBs....) feel totally justified stereotyping groups of people (in this case, GMs) for being bigots. Beam me up!

 

[Dr. Octopus]

....and here's the irony - those that profess to be outraged at those who stereotype others (GMs that don't like black QBs....) feel totally justified stereotyping groups of people (in this case, GMs) for being bigots. Beam me up!

Wow

 

[squistion]

....and here's the irony - those that profess to be outraged at those who stereotype others (GMs that don't like black QBs....) feel totally justified stereotyping groups of people (in this case, GMs) for being bigots. Beam me up!

Yes, don't you just hate it when someone calls a bigot a bigot.

Seriously, I don't think Waldman or anyone else is really "outraged" by this, more like just pointing out that even in 2014 racism (either conscious or unconscious) does still exist to some extent in this country and may impact Bridgewater's draft status (which remains to be seen, and even if it does could not be proven, since no one would go on the record to admit it)

 

[ICON211]

....and here's the irony - those that profess to be outraged at those who stereotype others (GMs that don't like black QBs....) feel totally justified stereotyping groups of people (in this case, GMs) for being bigots. Beam me up!

Yes, don't you just hate it when someone calls a bigot a bigot.

Seriously, I don't think Waldman or anyone else is really "outraged" by this, more like just pointing out that even in 2014 racism (either conscious or unconscious) does still exist to some extent in this country and may impact Bridgewater's draft status - which remains to be seen and even if it does could not be proven since no one would go on the record to admit it.

So anyone that passes on Bridgewater is a bigot? Please list the NFL GMs that are bigots. How many more examples do people need of black QBs being drafted in the top 10 in previous years? I guess people will believe what they want no matter what facts they are confronted with.

 

[comfortably numb]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Homer-Walks-Into-Bar-and-Leaves.gif

 

[PatsWillWin]

....and here's the irony - those that profess to be outraged at those who stereotype others (GMs that don't like black QBs....) feel totally justified stereotyping groups of people (in this case, GMs) for being bigots. Beam me up!

Yes, don't you just hate it when someone calls a bigot a bigot.

Seriously, I don't think Waldman or anyone else is really "outraged" by this, more like just pointing out that even in 2014 racism (either conscious or unconscious) does still exist to some extent in this country and may impact Bridgewater's draft status - which remains to be seen and even if it does could not be proven since no one would go on the record to admit it.

So was the NFL not racist when Cam went #1 ooooor what?

 

[cobalt_27]

....and here's the irony - those that profess to be outraged at those who stereotype others (GMs that don't like black QBs....) feel totally justified stereotyping groups of people (in this case, GMs) for being bigots. Beam me up!

Yes, don't you just hate it when someone calls a bigot a bigot.

Seriously, I don't think Waldman or anyone else is really "outraged" by this, more like just pointing out that even in 2014 racism (either conscious or unconscious) does still exist to some extent in this country and may impact Bridgewater's draft status - which remains to be seen and even if it does could not be proven since no one would go on the record to admit it.

Of course racism exists. It always has and always will.But, Waldman needs to stick to film study and ease off on social commentary because on the latter he really has no clue what he is talking about as it pertains to the NFL and the QB position. EJ Manuel (16 overall), RGIII (2), Cam Newton (1), Josh Freeman (17), JaMarcus Russell (1), Vince Young (3), Jason Campbell (25), Byron Leftwich (7), Mike Vick (1), Daunte Culpepper (11), Akili Smith (3), Donovan McNabb (2), and Steve McNair (3) all selected in the first round in the past two decades. Any of these guys over-drafted? Absolutely. About half were pedestrian to downright awful.

In contrast, are there any black QBs in the past 20 years who were not evaluated correctly and should have been taken higher? Any black QBs not taken in the 1st round, but should have been (QBs you could theoretically make a case for racism dropping their stock)? I think of only two names that stands out: Kaepernick and Wilson, taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds respectively. Even Matt would agree that playing in a gimmick offense for Nevada probably hurt Kaep's stock more than his skin color; for Wilson, his size was the big deterrent.

Waldman's provocative statement was either designed to bring attention to himself or made out of lazy ignorance. Really hard to make a case for even covert racism playing any significant role in black QBs dropping in draft value because of their skin color in the past 20 years. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Bridgewater is getting knocked badly for his pro day - including by many media types with a strong NFL background, not just self-made pundits like most of us - when everyone openly admits that JaMarcus Russell had the best pro day in recent memory and Matt Ryan had one of the worst - ie it has little if any correlation to pro success.

At some point you have to explore some alternative theories on why Bridgewater appears to be graded on a different curve than his peers.

So are there no black people working in the media or are they racist too?

 

[Kevrunner]

I've listen to almost of the podcasts that FBGs has put out since they started podcasting, can't remember them ever having a black man as a regular voice on any of their podcasts. I'm sure there has been a guest every now and then who has been black, but why not a regular voice. Never gave this a thought until the recent comments from Matt regarding Bridgewater and race still being a factor when drafting/grading QBs in his opinion. Matt forget black QBs, you have no control over that, but what about trying to get a regular black voice on FBGs? I can see you making an argument for that and have influence. In my fantasy leagues we have a lot of black owners and I'm sure there are a lot of black subscribers to FBGs. Why no black voice?

 

[Jersey Jammer]

I've listen to almost of the podcasts that FBGs has put out since they started podcasting, can't remember them ever having a black man as a regular voice on any of their podcasts. I'm sure there has been a guest every now and then who has been black, but why not a regular voice. Never gave this a thought until the recent comments from Matt regarding Bridgewater and race still being a factor when drafting/grading QBs in his opinion. Matt forget black QBs, you have no control over that, but what about trying to get a regular black voice on FBGs? I can see you making an argument for that and have influence. In my fantasy leagues we have a lot of black owners and I'm sure there are a lot of black subscribers to FBGs. Why no black voice?

To me the reason for the lack of African American guests is obvious - It's because if you don't talk with the perfect "Queen's English" and if you don't look like someone from England as well, I think that there's sometimes still a little bit of innate, of a latent problem there, whether it's conscious or not.

 

[Village Idiot]

You should correct yourself. There is no drive by here. I've been here responding to Andy's posts.

Which was a response to Bracie's.

Having fun?

What's your point?

That, whether or not it's on purpose, you're talking nonsense.

Why would racism be someone's first impression if a black GM passed over a black QB?

Andy save your time. There is a reason why some people have Move and other people on their ignore lists.