Well, after considering his podcast, his response to this thread, his 2012 article, and his most recent article
http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/03/25/how-to-find-your-mercedes/ ...putting this all together, I think it's safe to assume Waldman has Bridgewater ranked comfortably as his #1 QB in his RSP. Which means, if Bridgewater isn't the first QB selected and/or he falls out of the top-15, then Waldman will feel vindicated that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
And, if Bridgewater is selected QB1 and in the top-10, then the 25% safety net kicks in, and Waldman will still maintain that NFL execs and GMs are a bunch of racist fools.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Waldman's issue is with the NFC exec who referred to Leftwich as "soft," if it meant he missed a lot of time to injury. We all know about and remember the heroics he put on at Marshall playing on a broken leg. That ain't soft, that's one tough sob. In that regard. However, Leftwich's NFL career was marred by at least 32 weeks where he was listed as either on the IR or "doubtful," or "out" due to injury (e.g., ribs, elbow, tailbone, ankle, knee). By that standard maybe "soft" has nothing to do with race, but simply reflects that the guy was injury-prone and that the NFC exec has the same concerns for Bridgewater, who had an assortment of ankle, thumb, and wrist injuries and probably needs to fill out his frame a bit to survive the pros for a long time as a franchise QB.
Or, maybe Waldman's right, and the exec is a racist.
Can you please quote where Matt said that NFL execs were "a bunch of racist fools" or even strongly implied that?
His position was far more subtle than any of that. I know some people think his position was outrageous, but the counterpoints have reached just as "ridiculous" of a level of hyperbole and foolishness.
If you haven't heard Waldman's podcast comments or read his response here or read the Mercedes article, you should. His implication throughout is that execs are making foolish arguments and decisions based on race. I don't see how that interpretation is even in question.
I have listened and I have read the article in question. I see your interpretation of both as hyperbolic and unfair. However unlike some people in this thread, I will not say that you are wrong or attack you personally for feeling that way. To be fair to you, you have been fairly level headed in your criticisms of Matt and have not really crossed any lines, unlike some.
Matt's insertion of racism into the discussion, imo, was more directed at how a black QB may be held to different standards or be elevaluated differently based on the stereotype that black QBs are athletes and not cerebral field generals. Perhaps since Bridgewater is not an athletic freak, and more a traditional pocket passer, his skin color could have some effect on how he is perceived as an NFL prospect. The black QBs that many cite as counter examples of QBs being drafted highly (Newton, Griffin, Manuel) fit the athletic QB mold - and many questioned their ability to read defenses and become pocket passers. However they were drafted because of their running ability, strong arms and potential, despite many thinking they weren't necessarily great QBs in the traditional sense.
Since Brdigewater is much more Tom Brady than Cam Newton, his skin color could be a detriment. I'm not sure I buy that in this day and age, but don't feel it's an outrageous position to take.
As an example, I remember back when Jamarcus Russell was a prospect coming into the league and I read posts here at FBG which talked about his dynasty prospects and how his rushing stats would greatly enhance his fantasy production. Meanwhile I could probably beat the guy in a foot race. That's the subconscious, subtle or indirect racism Matt may be bringing into focus. Why was it assumed that Russell was a running QB?
Why can't that be discussed for what it is rather than the insults, personal attacks (towards his wife, friends and choice of pets), and distortions of his position that I've seen from many in this thread?
Dude, did you think much about where Tom Brady was drafted when citing that as an example?
How can Tom Brady be Tom Brady now, but get drafted where he did in the NFL draft, and think that Bridgewater slipping out of the top 10 is 75% due to racism rather than to talent evaluation being an extremely imprecise art? That means if he's pick 1.11, not even a later rounder like Brady was, it's 75% likely to be due to racism.
Is it not manifestly obvious how baseless Waldman's claim is? Of all the reasons that create variance in where people rank these players, Waldman is going to hitch his horse to racism with 75% certainty?
That's why the outrage. We're talking racism here. As far as the public eye is concerned, racism is right up there with murder, rape, incest and pedophilia with the general population.
All it takes to be accused by Waldman of racism, well, accused of being at least 75% likely to be racist, is that you disagree with him on how early in the first round a black QB should go.
First, you obviously only read the thread title and didn't listen to the podcast or read the article because he didn't accuse anyone of being 75% likely a racist. You don't even have his usage of "75%" attributed to the right potential outcome. It's a 75% chance of falling out of the top 10, not that if he does it will be 75% due to racism, as the thread title suggests.
Secondly, dude, Tom Brady was only used to represent the idea of "being a pocket passer", I could have used Peyton Manning instead, who went No. 1 overall. So you are also misrepresenting or not reading carefully what I said either.
Wow, I went back and re-read the transcript in post #15. If your assertion is correct, then I may have been giving him too much credit.
Instead of saying that if Bridgewater falls out of the top 10, it will be 75% likely to be due to racism, he instead said that there is a 75% chance that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10 and it
will (that's an important word) be because he doesn't look enough like what a team wants as the face of a franchise...which he attributes to subconscious racism.
So, in essence, he said that there is a 75% that Bridgewater slides out of the top 10, and there is a 100% chance of it being due to subconscious racism if it happens.
Now, if he can only slide out of the top 10 because of racism, and there is a 75% chance he will slide out of the top 10, then doesn't that mean that there is a 75% chance that the top 10 teams are racist?
So then I was wrong in that instead of saying that there's a 75% that he slides due to racism, Waldman instead said that there's just a flat 75% chance of the top 10 teams being racist, albeit subconsciously.
I'm tying to remember my algebraic properties and how the parenthesis work with multiplication, but I'm pretty sure that's how it plays out.
So do you think you are helping him by drawing that distinction?
As for the Brady reference, my point is perfectly valid. That was a horrible example for you to draw on in defense of Waldman. That was my point about Brady...I can't believe you went there in defense of Waldman. If the evaluation of QB's is so reliable pre-draft, how did 32 teams not know that Brady had even starter potential, not to mention pro-bowl or HOF potential, when they were picking in the first 5 rounds of the 2000 draft?
If 32 teams can miss on the non-athletic pocket-passer like Brady,
who consequently has the looks and charm to be everyone's fantasy face of the franchise, for 5 rounds, how absolutely freakin' ludicrous is it to say that a non-athletic, undersized pocket-passer like Bridgewater will only slide out of the top 10 due to racism?
I don't care why you brought Brady up. It doesn't matter. He's the perfect example of how imprecise the evaluation process is. It therefore highlights how reckless and baseless it is for Waldman to say what he did.