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

[HellToupee]

If mods are giving out free scrips to members that move to their side of the argument, Im easily bought.

PM me. Thx.

Weren't you given " a talking to " earlier?

 

[Soulfly3]

If mods are giving out free scrips to members that move to their side of the argument, Im easily bought.

PM me. Thx.

Weren't you given " a talking to " earlier?

no.

 

[BassNBrew]

So does the NBA banning Sterling for life prove that racism isn't tolerated and Bridgewater will now be drafted in the top ten?

 

[Soulfly3]

So does the NBA banning Sterling for life prove that racism isn't tolerated and Bridgewater will now be drafted in the top ten?

woah, slow down...

do you want to be "talked" to?

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".

Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

So does the NBA banning Sterling for life prove that racism isn't tolerated and Bridgewater will now be drafted in the top ten?

woah, slow down...

do you want to be "talked" to?

Somebody really needs to grow up.

 

[Neofight]

For those new to the thread, here's what Matt said (emphasis not mine):

Oh I’m buying it because there are 32 different organizations and some are run like a bad pizza parlor and some are ran like a wonderful fortune 500 company that wins all sorts of awards. But unfortunately there’s still a mentality that when you look at the corporate nature at how they conduct things, and I say “try” corporate nature because some of them probably wouldn’t know their way in or out of a boardroom. But when it comes to that type of, and when I talk about this while I probably look like I’m doing the janitorial work right now, but see when it comes down to how they hire people and how they interview and when they go about this type of process, if you have any experience out in the world with how people hire, fire, and perceive folks that they have as candidates, then you know why Teddy Bridgewater is not going to be in the top 10...or at least there’s probably a 75% chance that it’s not going to happen and that he is going to drop to 26 because he does not look like the figurehead of an organization and I know it’s 2014, but unfortunately some of these teams still, when it comes to a player like that, they’re going to look at him and it’s still going to be 1970, 1980 all over again.Some of these teams are gonna find ways to “nitpick” that. And I know that some people are going to be upset with this when I say it but 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. Now some of them, the way I say this, 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.

They’re trying to nitpick that he’s not big enough, or maybe the arm’s not quite strong enough, but I think that the problem is that there’s a level of discomfort, whether it’s culturally, whether it’s race, whether it has something to do with who he is, that in the same way that people had cultural discomfort with Geno Smith because he does not look and sound like the guy that you would have speaking at a country club breakfast, you know, lunch and, you know, and I think that’s what they want is they want someone, the same way that Carolina’s owner asked Cam Newton if he had any tattoos because he wasn’t gnna draft anyone with tattoos. I mean how backwards is that? Now that’s his right, but to me that’s backwards.

You know, you have, it’s different being the head of an organization for business, and whether you need to dress a certain way and have a certain type of look and being someone who is a quarterback of a football team. It’s a, those are two very different cultures, but the owners and the GM’s, mostly the owners I think, are very keen on having this type of PR look because that sells tickets, that gets sponsorships, that helps with the advertising, and they wanna make sure that their money, that they’re getting good investment, in terms of community and everything else, and I think Bridgewater to them is something that they fear the idea of that not going over well. Maybe they’re not racist, but I think it’s a form of indirect racism that we’re going to see play out.

And I know a lot of people are going to be upset with that idea, but I think that’s really what it goes down to because I wouldn’t even dignify, the player that he reminds me of, and I’ve written in the RSP and certainly it’s not from the standpoint of championships and accomplishments, but in terms of his feet, his ability to find, you know, players, tight windows, play hurt, stretch the field, making play calls, he reminds me of Joe Montana. Some people are going to find that as going overboad, but when your an assistant coach (some story about Bridgewater’s coach, and how Bridgewater mastered the playbook, and when they asked the assistant coach abut him, he cried or something). You don’t see that very often, so to me, the idea, this whole thing is a game, and it’s really just how do we nitpick him because we want him to be a little more grateful for having this opportunity, and he didn’t show up to the combine, we want him to go with a certain agent, but he didn’t pick the right agent, possibly. You know, he wanted, you know, we had a workout where he, you know, it was scripted, and we’re gonna nitpick that a little bit too. Meanwhile Derek Carr threw up before his workout, I know that he had a stomach bug, but, you know, I’m sure that if that were Teddy Bridgewater that somebody would be going “Oh, see, he’s nervous. He was nervous. He can’t handle the pressure, he can’t handle the pressure of a scripted workout.” But with Derek Carr, we’re not going to question the fact that he had a stomach bug.

Bloom then told some story about some draft reporter saying he heard that Bridgewater that he didn’t do well in interviews, and isn’t surrounding himself with the right people (someone named Eric). The implication here too was that Bridgewater is being “nitpicked,” as Waldman would call it, which is shorthand for racism. “I think the subtext is there,” Bloom said. So he’s on board too.

Back to Waldman:

When it comes to perception, when it comes to looks and all these different types of facets, so when they say they didn’t interview well, that’s fine. I had an agent talk about that he didn’t, or that certain players at the combine, were really horrible to deal with and I pressed him about it and asked what was wrong with them, and the things were “Weeeelll, he asked to do a re-take when the production crew was filming something. Or he asked because he didn’t like how he sounded and they just felt like he was being difficult.” You know, he can’t be a collaborator, just be grateful that you’re here and just shut up and be the commodity that you are. And to me, that’s just ridiculous, and to me I think that’s probably why, and if you don’t talk with the perfect “Queen’s English” and if you don’t look like someone who came 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.

Waldman had a bad day. You all pretty much had a bad day on that podcast. It came across as though you all were part of the GOBC, quite honestly. Accept it and move on.

A little clarity from Waldman would be appreciated-what does he know, specifically, about how Bridgewater is viewed by NFL FO's around the league-but not expected. If he doesn't have that info he shouldn't have made the claim. There's really been nothing divulged so far to support it.

 

[Soulfly3]

So does the NBA banning Sterling for life prove that racism isn't tolerated and Bridgewater will now be drafted in the top ten?

woah, slow down...

do you want to be "talked" to?

Somebody really needs to grow up.

if growing up involves the delusion of racism in decision making in sports, than Im fine being a child.

 

[Neofight]

So does the NBA banning Sterling for life prove that racism isn't tolerated and Bridgewater will now be drafted in the top ten?

That, or 3/4 of the league is going to change hands if he isn't.

 

[ICON211]

<script language='javascript'> </script>

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".

Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick
2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

 

[Neofight]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".

Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

I'm quite likely to Waldman's left (worked for Raul Grijalva back in my Tucson days and am of a similar political view to Bernie Sanders on many important social issues). Politics has nothing to do with this. That straw man aside, your points don't really do much to support Waldman's point of view.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Comparing Waldman to Sterling is beyond stupid. Waldman is off base and simply wrong IMO, but that's not even close to being an actual racist like Sterling. To say they're in any way equivalent is absurd.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Comparing Waldman to Sterling is beyond stupid. Waldman is off base and simply wrong IMO, but that's not even close to being an actual racist like Sterling. To say they're in any way equivalent is absurd.

I agree Waldman didn't say anything racist but I think his comments are equally as stupid as Sterling's comments. Waldman acts like he is the God of determining racism in the world. Needs to get over himself. How come it wasn't racist when his #1 QB last year (Tyler Wilson) fell to like the 15th round?

 

[Bronco Billy]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black". Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

For people like you, racism will always be a factor. When the facts show otherwise, as they plainly do in where black QBs have been drafted recently, you simply move the goalposts, so that we have things like "subtle" racism or "subconscious" racism or whatever your buzzwords are now. And when the facts continue to prove otherwise, you'll just make up a whole new angle. You have to have racism, because your positions require the creation of victims. So ignore the facts for what they are, make up your cute little nuances that allow you to change the parameters, and continue believing that all white people - except liberals, of course - are evil and oppress everyone else. Your world doesn't work otherwise.

Lynch mob. couldn't even help yourself with that, could you?

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".

Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

I'm quite likely to Waldman's left (worked for Raul Grijalva back in my Tucson days and am of a similar political view to Bernie Sanders on many important social issues). Politics has nothing to do with this. That straw man aside, your points don't really do much to support Waldman's point of view.

Of course politics has something to do with this. It's naive to suggest otherwise. I've already acknowledged that there are left leaning posters who objected to his comments, that doesn't change anything. I'm not sure how long you've been around here, I've been around since the yellow board days. I've seen/been involved in most every (dozens upon dozens) of the discussions involving race, white conservatives here fight tooth and nail to minimize any suggestion of racism and then began the "reverse racism" meme years ago. So it's really not a straw man.

Having said that, people just aren't getting it. I'm not necessarily supporting his point of view. There's now 15 pages of people misstating what he said. What he actually said really isn't all that controversial. You can disagree with him but the level of outrage here is beyond ridiculous and it really has turned into a lynch mob (yeah I know it bugs some people that I use that phrase).

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black". Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

For people like you, racism will always be a factor. When the facts show otherwise, as they plainly do in where black QBs have been drafted recently, you simply move the goalposts, so that we have things like "subtle" racism or "subconscious" racism or whatever your buzzwords are now. And when the facts continue to prove otherwise, you'll just make up a whole new angle. You have to have racism, because your positions require the creation of victims. So ignore the facts for what they are, make up your cute little nuances that allow you to change the parameters, and continue believing that all white people - except liberals, of course - are evil and oppress everyone else. Your world doesn't work otherwise.

Lynch mob. couldn't even help yourself with that, could you?

I haven't moved any goalposts, I merely more accurately summarized what Matt Waldman said, which was apparently already summarized by Sigmund Bloom several pages back. Waldman was the one who used "indirect racism"-have you even read the thread other than to stop in and take potshots with your feigned righteous indignation?

I'm not making up any "nuances". Nuances exist in everything. Have you ever heard the phrase "concrete thinking"? It's the inability to see things in any way other than black and white, in absolutes. You are the one who mischaracterized Waldman's comments (not the only one obviously).

If you read the few posts I've made in this thread you might notice I've never taken a position on Bridgewater. My comments have been somewhat tangential, like this one. But if you are going to freak out at least have an accurate understanding of what you're freaking out about.

 

[RBM]

Gandalf, is everything in your world a matter of "right and left"? And everything "right" is bad and everything "left" is good?

Holy hell is that tiring.

 

[Neofight]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

I'm quite likely to Waldman's left (worked for Raul Grijalva back in my Tucson days and am of a similar political view to Bernie Sanders on many important social issues). Politics has nothing to do with this. That straw man aside, your points don't really do much to support Waldman's point of view.

Of course politics has something to do with this. It's naive to suggest otherwise. I've already acknowledged that there are left leaning posters who objected to his comments, that doesn't change anything. I'm not sure how long you've been around here, I've been around since the yellow board days. I've seen/been involved in most every (dozens upon dozens) of the discussions involving race, white conservatives here fight tooth and nail to minimize any suggestion of racism and then began the "reverse racism" meme years ago. So it's really not a straw man.Having said that, people just aren't getting it. I'm not necessarily supporting his point of view. There's now 15 pages of people misstating what he said. What he actually said really isn't all that controversial. You can disagree with him but the level of outrage here is beyond ridiculous and it really has turned into a lynch mob (yeah I know it bugs some people that I use that phrase).

As a card carrying pinko commie, please stop with the lynch mob nonsense. It doesn't help his cause or yours (or liberals in general, for that matter).

You injected politics into this. Waldman made a hypothetical scenario (which may or may not actually take place in a few days) about race. The rest has been trying to decipher what is fact from fiction and fallacy. You haven't helped in this department.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

I'm quite likely to Waldman's left (worked for Raul Grijalva back in my Tucson days and am of a similar political view to Bernie Sanders on many important social issues). Politics has nothing to do with this. That straw man aside, your points don't really do much to support Waldman's point of view.

Of course politics has something to do with this. It's naive to suggest otherwise. I've already acknowledged that there are left leaning posters who objected to his comments, that doesn't change anything. I'm not sure how long you've been around here, I've been around since the yellow board days. I've seen/been involved in most every (dozens upon dozens) of the discussions involving race, white conservatives here fight tooth and nail to minimize any suggestion of racism and then began the "reverse racism" meme years ago. So it's really not a straw man.Having said that, people just aren't getting it. I'm not necessarily supporting his point of view. There's now 15 pages of people misstating what he said. What he actually said really isn't all that controversial. You can disagree with him but the level of outrage here is beyond ridiculous and it really has turned into a lynch mob (yeah I know it bugs some people that I use that phrase).

As a card carrying pinko commie, please stop with the lynch mob nonsense. It doesn't help his cause or yours (or liberals in general, for that matter).

You injected politics into this. Waldman made a hypothetical scenario (which may or may not actually take place in a few days) about race. The rest has been trying to decipher what is fact from fiction and fallacy. You haven't helped in this department.

I don't care what your politics are. I call it like I see it, and that includes the "lynch mob" comment. 15 pages of people threatening to cancel subscriptions, accusations of "race baiting" when half (or more) of the people posting can't even accurately articulate what exactly was said. I think lynch mob is a pretty accurate metaphor. I don't have a "cause" here so I have no idea wth you are talking about. I just got tired of people inaccurately characterizing what was actually said. And don't act like you speak for "liberals in general".

Distinguishing "fact from fiction and fallacy"? What is there to distinguish? Sigmund Bloom posted a transcript of his remarks-so what is there to distinguish? The rest is a bunch of faux outrage and misinterpretation.

Otherwise, thanks for being the voice of reason /sarcasm

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Gandalf, is everything in your world a matter of "right and left"? And everything "right" is bad and everything "left" is good?

Holy hell is that tiring.

No, that's not everything in my world. But it's usually what motivates me to post. And not everything "right" is bad nor everything "left" good. But some of the rightwing worldview infuriates me. And I know it's tiring, time for me to take a break from here. Thanks for mentioning it.

 

[fatness]

So race baiting is promoted in the Shark Pool?

That's disheartening.

Not as disheartening as seeing this comment on page 13 of this thread. A staff member voices an opinion in a podcast and as a result the Shark Pool is promoting race baiting? Please.

Bronco Billy is Pony Boy, a LONG time poster here. His views on this are not at all surprising if you've read him in the past.

Actually Pony Boy is Bronco Billy - who was here before this site became FBGs (cheatsheets.net) - and neither one clouds the facts of this matter. Not sure why you think the information in your response is in any way pertinent.

I remember Pony Boy. He was a thin-skinned guy, easily angered. He offered me a trade in one fantasy league which I thought was lopsided, and when I made a reasonable counteroffer he came over here to whine about my counteroffer, I think in the Assistant Coach forum.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's an awful lot of crazy in here.

Sterling has nothing to do with what Matt was talking about in the podcast. Sterling is an out-and-out racist. I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

How confident am I that I am right and Matt is wrong? Only somewhat. Matt's position is not exactly out of left field. It's consistent with lots of studies and experiments in human psychology, even very recent ones. I mentioned in a previous post an experiment where otherwise identical resumes were sent out to companies -- half with black-sounding names and half with white-sounding names. The ones with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews, and the results were statistically significant.

Here is a more recent experiment:

In Written in Black and White, selected law firm partners were asked to evaluate a single research memo into which 22 different errors were deliberately inserted – 7 spelling/grammar errors, 6 substantive writing errors, 5 errors in fact, and 4 analytic errors. Half of the partner evaluators were told that the hypothetical associate author was African American and half were told that the author was Caucasian.

Sadly, you know what’s coming.

On a five point scale, reviews for the exact same memo averaged a 3.2 for the "African American" author and 4.1 for the "Caucasian" author. More surprising were the findings of "objective" criteria such as spelling. The partner evaluators found an average of 2.9 spelling and grammar errors for the "Caucasian" authors and 5.8 such errors for the "African American" authors. Overall the memo presumed to have been written by a "Caucasian" was "evaluated to be better in regards to the analysis of facts and had substantively fewer critical comments."

This is not Donald Sterling-style racism we're talking about. This is unintentional bias shared by even the African American partners (who, like their white counterparts, gave lower scores to briefs they believed were written by African Americans).

Is Matt crazy to think that NFL GMs are no better at putting aside unconscious bias than those law firm partners are? I don't agree with Matt's conclusion, but I certainly can't call it crazy. It's far less crazy, for sure, than a lot of what's been posted in this thread.

 

[johnjohn]

There's an awful lot of crazy in here.

Sterling has nothing to do with what Matt was talking about in the podcast. Sterling is an out-and-out racist. I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

How confident am I that I am right and Matt is wrong? Only somewhat. Matt's position is not exactly out of left field. It's consistent with lots of studies and experiments in human psychology, even very recent ones. I mentioned in a previous post an experiment where otherwise identical resumes were sent out to companies -- half with black-sounding names and half with white-sounding names. The ones with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews, and the results were statistically significant.

Here is a more recent experiment:

In Written in Black and White, selected law firm partners were asked to evaluate a single research memo into which 22 different errors were deliberately inserted – 7 spelling/grammar errors, 6 substantive writing errors, 5 errors in fact, and 4 analytic errors. Half of the partner evaluators were told that the hypothetical associate author was African American and half were told that the author was Caucasian.

Sadly, you know what’s coming.

On a five point scale, reviews for the exact same memo averaged a 3.2 for the “African American” author and 4.1 for the "Caucasian" author. More surprising were the findings of "objective" criteria such as spelling. The partner evaluators found an average of 2.9 spelling and grammar errors for the "Caucasian" authors and 5.8 such errors for the "African American" authors. Overall the memo presumed to have been written by a "Caucasian" was "evaluated to be better in regards to the analysis of facts and had substantively fewer critical comments."

This is not Donald Sterling-style racism we're talking about. This is unintentional bias shared by even the African American partners (who, like their white counterparts, gave lower scores to briefs they believed were written by African Americans).

Is Matt crazy to think that NFL GMs are no better at putting aside unconscious bias than those law firm partners are? I don't agree with Matt's conclusion, but I certainly can't call it crazy. It's far less crazy, for sure, than a lot of what's been posted in this thread.

you can find a "scientific" experiment on everything saying anything using google, doesn't mean much

 

[BassNBrew]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

For people like you, racism will always be a factor. When the facts show otherwise, as they plainly do in where black QBs have been drafted recently, you simply move the goalposts, so that we have things like "subtle" racism or "subconscious" racism or whatever your buzzwords are now. And when the facts continue to prove otherwise, you'll just make up a whole new angle. You have to have racism, because your positions require the creation of victims.So ignore the facts for what they are, make up your cute little nuances that allow you to change the parameters, and continue believing that all white people - except liberals, of course - are evil and oppress everyone else. Your world doesn't work otherwise.

Lynch mob. couldn't even help yourself with that, could you?

I haven't moved any goalposts, I merely more accurately summarized what Matt Waldman said, which was apparently already summarized by Sigmund Bloom several pages back. Waldman was the one who used "indirect racism"-have you even read the thread other than to stop in and take potshots with your feigned righteous indignation?

I'm not making up any "nuances". Nuances exist in everything. Have you ever heard the phrase "concrete thinking"? It's the inability to see things in any way other than black and white, in absolutes. You are the one who mischaracterized Waldman's comments (not the only one obviously).

If you read the few posts I've made in this thread you might notice I've never taken a position on Bridgewater. My comments have been somewhat tangential, like this one. But if you are going to freak out at least have an accurate understanding of what you're freaking out about.

There is no such thing as indirect racism when it comes to the draft. Either he's selected in the top ten or he's not. If GMs or owners think he's the next Joe Montana, they wouldn't care if he's black, purple, or green. If you're going to argue that he might get less pr ops or commercial ops than a white counterpart I might agree with you on indirect racism. Past history shows NFL teams are afraid to select a black QB in the top ten. Now you may argue that only applies to the team's that have selected a QB in the top ten. Well Oakland selected Russell in the top ten and are in a position draft wise and need wise to select Bridgewater if they so chose.

 

[BassNBrew]

There's an awful lot of crazy in here.

Sterling has nothing to do with what Matt was talking about in the podcast. Sterling is an out-and-out racist. I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

How confident am I that I am right and Matt is wrong? Only somewhat. Matt's position is not exactly out of left field. It's consistent with lots of studies and experiments in human psychology, even very recent ones. I mentioned in a previous post an experiment where otherwise identical resumes were sent out to companies -- half with black-sounding names and half with white-sounding names. The ones with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews, and the results were statistically significant.

Here is a more recent experiment:

In Written in Black and White, selected law firm partners were asked to evaluate a single research memo into which 22 different errors were deliberately inserted – 7 spelling/grammar errors, 6 substantive writing errors, 5 errors in fact, and 4 analytic errors. Half of the partner evaluators were told that the hypothetical associate author was African American and half were told that the author was Caucasian.

Sadly, you know what’s coming.

On a five point scale, reviews for the exact same memo averaged a 3.2 for the "African American" author and 4.1 for the "Caucasian" author. More surprising were the findings of "objective" criteria such as spelling. The partner evaluators found an average of 2.9 spelling and grammar errors for the "Caucasian" authors and 5.8 such errors for the "African American" authors. Overall the memo presumed to have been written by a "Caucasian" was "evaluated to be better in regards to the analysis of facts and had substantively fewer critical comments."

This is not Donald Sterling-style racism we're talking about. This is unintentional bias shared by even the African American partners (who, like their white counterparts, gave lower scores to briefs they believed were written by African Americans).

Is Matt crazy to think that NFL GMs are no better at putting aside unconscious bias than those law firm partners are? I don't agree with Matt's conclusion, but I certainly can't call it crazy. It's far less crazy, for sure, than a lot of what's been posted in this thread.

Interesting. I would think it's very likely there are NFL GMs who are racist like Sterling. So if Matt agrees with you on that point, then I would disagree with both of you. This issue isn't about whether prejudice exists, it's about with prejudices will impact where a player is selected. I may hate fish tacos, but if I know they will be a top seller and make a good margin in my cafe, then they will be on my menu.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I may hate fish tacos, but if I know they will be a top seller and make a good margin in my cafe, then they will be on my menu.

Right. I don't think Matt's contention is that NFL GMs would pass up Bridgewater even though they think he'll win Super Bowls.

If I understand him, his contention is that they might underestimate his chance of winning Super Bowls because of a subconscious bias they're not aware of. He said:

Now some of them, the way I say this, 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.

They’re trying to nitpick that he’s not big enough, or maybe the arm’s not quite strong enough, but I think that the problem is that there’s a level of discomfort, whether it’s culturally, whether it’s race . . .

It'd be like excluding fish tacos from your cafe's menu because you subconsciously overestimate their cost (and therefore underestimate their margin). You wouldn't do it on purpose, but sometimes people get stuff wrong by accident. Human nature being what it is, sometimes it has to do with a person's appearance, or the way they talk, or something else that correlates with race (if not with race directly).

 

[BassNBrew]

I may hate fish tacos, but if I know they will be a top seller and make a good margin in my cafe, then they will be on my menu.

Right. I don't think Matt's contention is that NFL GMs would pass up Bridgewater even though they think he'll win Super Bowls.

If I understand him, his contention is that they might underestimate his chance of winning Super Bowls because of a subconscious bias they're not aware of. He said:

Now some of them, the way I say this, 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.

They’re trying to nitpick that he’s not big enough, or maybe the arm’s not quite strong enough, but I think that the problem is that there’s a level of discomfort, whether it’s culturally, whether it’s race . . .

It'd be like excluding fish tacos from your cafe's menu because you subconsciously overestimate their cost (and therefore underestimate their margin). You wouldn't do it on purpose, but sometimes people get stuff wrong by accident. Human nature being what it is, sometimes it has to do with a person's appearance, or the way they talk, or something else that correlates with race (if not with race directly).

Yet this didn't happen with Newton, Russel, RG3, Young, etc.

I think Bridgewater to them is something that they fear the idea of that not going over well. Maybe they’re not racist, but I think it’s a form of indirect racism that we’re going to see play out.

That would be direct racism.

Oh I’m buying it because there are 32 different organizations and some are run like a bad pizza parlor

Such as Oakland, Washington, Carolina…the ones who selected black QBs early.

I know it’s 2014, but unfortunately some of these teams still, when it comes to a player like that, they’re going to look at him and it’s still going to be 1970, 1980 all over again.

Once again, this is direct racism, not sub-conscious racism.

You read the quote and you first get a direct racism statement follow by a statement that contradicts the accusation or at least tries to down play or excuse it. In my book Matt can't play it both ways, The recent draft history and number of black QBs starting in the NFL relative to the % of black QBs in college football defeat his point. It's quite obvious to most that skin color isn't a factor when NFL teams are deciding on who will lead their franchise.

 

[HellToupee]

I still contend the chuckles the boys had over Derek Carr was the low point of the podcast that week

 

[BassNBrew]

Furthermore MT, Matt tweets that Sterling's blatant racism supports his point. That is in direct conflict with your/his point that it's a sub-conscious thing they aren't aware of.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

at the spin by other staff members

 

[johnjohn]

at the spin by other staff members

Hey, sometimes you got to defend your buddy even if you know they are wrong. I can't hate on them for that

I actually love Waldman, big fan of his, he just got this one thing wrong, it is only a big deal because he can't own up to it, but pride sometimes affects our judgement.

 

[Brewtown]

I don't have a problem with Matt Waldman speaking his mind. I heard what he said and I do not have any problem at all with his view on this. He is a strong believer in Bridgewater's talent and he spoke his mind. I don't doubt that if there was a close call to be made by an old school owner or GM that they could make their final decision based on a person's flavor.

In this situation though I don't think that he is falling due to his race. I think that he is falling because of his body type.

While Matt may have missed or be missing the mark on this one, I could see an old school front office person's opinion being tilted in a close call. I could see things both ways - Martin Mayhew could have the scales tipped on taking a black quarterback...

That being said - If an all-american looking choir Boy Scout looking Rogers could fall back in 2005 then anybody could fall.

 

[Jersey Jammer]

I may hate fish tacos, but if I know they will be a top seller and make a good margin in my cafe, then they will be on my menu.

Right. I don't think Matt's contention is that NFL GMs would pass up Bridgewater even though they think he'll win Super Bowls.

If I understand him, his contention is that they might underestimate his chance of winning Super Bowls because of a subconscious bias they're not aware of. He said:

Now some of them, the way I say this, 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.

They’re trying to nitpick that he’s not big enough, or maybe the arm’s not quite strong enough, but I think that the problem is that there’s a level of discomfort, whether it’s culturally, whether it’s race . . .

It'd be like excluding fish tacos from your cafe's menu because you subconsciously overestimate their cost (and therefore underestimate their margin). You wouldn't do it on purpose, but sometimes people get stuff wrong by accident. Human nature being what it is, sometimes it has to do with a person's appearance, or the way they talk, or something else that correlates with race (if not with race directly).

MT, are you really defending the statement that if TB falls out of the Top 10 it's a FACT it's due to racism? "...it’s the fact that he’s black. It’s the fact that he’s a black-skinned black man....". So the posts are crazy but that's perfectly sane, correct?

Do you think TB should be a top 10 pick? If not, are you a racist? Waldman says it's a fact that you are.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Nobody circles the wagons like FBG.

 

[RBM]

So race baiting is promoted in the Shark Pool?

That's disheartening.

Not as disheartening as seeing this comment on page 13 of this thread. A staff member voices an opinion in a podcast and as a result the Shark Pool is promoting race baiting? Please.

Bronco Billy is Pony Boy, a LONG time poster here. His views on this are not at all surprising if you've read him in the past.

Actually Pony Boy is Bronco Billy - who was here before this site became FBGs (cheatsheets.net) - and neither one clouds the facts of this matter. Not sure why you think the information in your response is in any way pertinent.

I remember Pony Boy. He was a thin-skinned guy, easily angered. He offered me a trade in one fantasy league which I thought was lopsided, and when I made a reasonable counteroffer he came over here to whine about my counteroffer, I think in the Assistant Coach forum.

Let's hear the offer...

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't have a problem with Matt Waldman speaking his mind. I heard what he said and I do not have any problem at all with his view on this. He is a strong believer in Bridgewater's talent and he spoke his mind. I don't doubt that if there was a close call to be made by an old school owner or GM that they could make their final decision based on a person's flavor.

In this situation though I don't think that he is falling due to his race. I think that he is falling because of his body type.

While Matt may have missed or be missing the mark on this one, I could see an old school front office person's opinion being tilted in a close call. I could see things both ways - Martin Mayhew could have the scales tipped on taking a black quarterback...

That being said - If an all-american looking choir Boy Scout looking Rogers could fall back in 2005 then anybody could fall.

The year Newton was drafted he went before Gabbert. The was a lot of talk about Gabbert being more NFL ready. Newton was also carrying a ton of baggage from the Florida incident and the Auburn investigation. That all got chucked out the window and the Panthers selected the guy who was faster, had a bigger body, and had a bigger arm. In 2011 Gabbert was Bridgewater and Newton was Manziel/Bortles.

 

[datonn]

I don't have a problem with Matt Waldman speaking his mind. I heard what he said and I do not have any problem at all with his view on this. He is a strong believer in Bridgewater's talent and he spoke his mind. I don't doubt that if there was a close call to be made by an old school owner or GM that they could make their final decision based on a person's flavor.

In this situation though I don't think that he is falling due to his race. I think that he is falling because of his body type.

While Matt may have missed or be missing the mark on this one, I could see an old school front office person's opinion being tilted in a close call. I could see things both ways - Martin Mayhew could have the scales tipped on taking a black quarterback...

That being said - If an all-american looking choir Boy Scout looking Rogers could fall back in 2005 then anybody could fall.

But Aaron Rodgers likes to disc golf...so everybody KNOWS he's a pot-head... [/sarcasm]

I don't know on this one. I hope Matt's wrong in his opinion, and that if Bridgewater does fall, it's because GMs/coaches/scouts don't like his size/frame, or how (at least to me) his passes seem to be more "finessed" into spots than driven there with confidence/RPMs. If my Vikings got him? I'd be thrilled. And if they traded from 1.08 to the 1.teens and STILL got him? It's all just a waste of time/bandwidth though, as Bridgewater could still go 1.03-1.05 and it all becomes a moot point. If he does take a tumble down the board next Thursday though, it'll be interesting to see/read where the conversation leads.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

There's an awful lot of crazy in here.

Sterling has nothing to do with what Matt was talking about in the podcast. Sterling is an out-and-out racist. I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

How confident am I that I am right and Matt is wrong? Only somewhat. Matt's position is not exactly out of left field. It's consistent with lots of studies and experiments in human psychology, even very recent ones. I mentioned in a previous post an experiment where otherwise identical resumes were sent out to companies -- half with black-sounding names and half with white-sounding names. The ones with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews, and the results were statistically significant.

Here is a more recent experiment:

In Written in Black and White, selected law firm partners were asked to evaluate a single research memo into which 22 different errors were deliberately inserted – 7 spelling/grammar errors, 6 substantive writing errors, 5 errors in fact, and 4 analytic errors. Half of the partner evaluators were told that the hypothetical associate author was African American and half were told that the author was Caucasian.

Sadly, you know what’s coming.

On a five point scale, reviews for the exact same memo averaged a 3.2 for the "African American" author and 4.1 for the "Caucasian" author. More surprising were the findings of "objective" criteria such as spelling. The partner evaluators found an average of 2.9 spelling and grammar errors for the "Caucasian" authors and 5.8 such errors for the "African American" authors. Overall the memo presumed to have been written by a "Caucasian" was "evaluated to be better in regards to the analysis of facts and had substantively fewer critical comments."

This is not Donald Sterling-style racism we're talking about. This is unintentional bias shared by even the African American partners (who, like their white counterparts, gave lower scores to briefs they believed were written by African Americans).

Is Matt crazy to think that NFL GMs are no better at putting aside unconscious bias than those law firm partners are? I don't agree with Matt's conclusion, but I certainly can't call it crazy. It's far less crazy, for sure, than a lot of what's been posted in this thread.

MT I got no problem with your or Matt and I enjoy the work both of you do. You each have a forum to share your opinion and this is mine so please understand its all good

[SIZE=medium]I made my feelings known in this thread a long time ago (when u r a hammer, everything looks like a nail) and pretty much ignored it ever since. NextIQ makes a lot of money by finding bias and promoting diversity (inclusion). They created an experiment to find bias and shockingly the experiment showed that their services were needed. “I am shocked, shocked to find inherent bias going on in here” [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Matt and the woman who founded Nextiq are part of an increasingly politically correct elitist world of academia (hammers) and to them everything looks like a nail (please see earlier post). Diversity and “inclusion” are skin deep, there is no diversity of thought. You want to get anywhere, you get on board with the people giving you the money. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Does racism exist? Of course it does, do Matt and Arin Reeves really know whats going on in people’s minds and inside their hearts? Hell no, but they can believe and pretend they do and as long as other like-minded academics agree with them, well, then you got yourself some irrefutable science and the sky is the limit……..[/SIZE]

 

[Brewtown]

I don't have a problem with Matt Waldman speaking his mind. I heard what he said and I do not have any problem at all with his view on this. He is a strong believer in Bridgewater's talent and he spoke his mind. I don't doubt that if there was a close call to be made by an old school owner or GM that they could make their final decision based on a person's flavor.

In this situation though I don't think that he is falling due to his race. I think that he is falling because of his body type.

While Matt may have missed or be missing the mark on this one, I could see an old school front office person's opinion being tilted in a close call. I could see things both ways - Martin Mayhew could have the scales tipped on taking a black quarterback...

That being said - If an all-american looking choir Boy Scout looking Rogers could fall back in 2005 then anybody could fall.

The year Newton was drafted he went before Gabbert. The was a lot of talk about Gabbert being more NFL ready. Newton was also carrying a ton of baggage from the Florida incident and the Auburn investigation. That all got chucked out the window and the Panthers selected the guy who was faster, had a bigger body, and had a bigger arm. In 2011 Gabbert was Bridgewater and Newton was Manziel/Bortles.

Yeah - good point.

There probably will be no better case study around that (doesn't Gabbert also have have blonde hair and blue eyes too).

I still don't agree with slamming Waldman. I say let it go - and keep your eyes on how his evaluations pan out in this years RSP. Slam him for that if you want, but not for calling it how he saw it on this issue....

 

[johnjohn]

There's an awful lot of crazy in here.

Sterling has nothing to do with what Matt was talking about in the podcast. Sterling is an out-and-out racist. I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

How confident am I that I am right and Matt is wrong? Only somewhat. Matt's position is not exactly out of left field. It's consistent with lots of studies and experiments in human psychology, even very recent ones. I mentioned in a previous post an experiment where otherwise identical resumes were sent out to companies -- half with black-sounding names and half with white-sounding names. The ones with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews, and the results were statistically significant.

Here is a more recent experiment:

In Written in Black and White, selected law firm partners were asked to evaluate a single research memo into which 22 different errors were deliberately inserted – 7 spelling/grammar errors, 6 substantive writing errors, 5 errors in fact, and 4 analytic errors. Half of the partner evaluators were told that the hypothetical associate author was African American and half were told that the author was Caucasian.

Sadly, you know what’s coming.

On a five point scale, reviews for the exact same memo averaged a 3.2 for the "African American" author and 4.1 for the "Caucasian" author. More surprising were the findings of "objective" criteria such as spelling. The partner evaluators found an average of 2.9 spelling and grammar errors for the "Caucasian" authors and 5.8 such errors for the "African American" authors. Overall the memo presumed to have been written by a "Caucasian" was "evaluated to be better in regards to the analysis of facts and had substantively fewer critical comments."

This is not Donald Sterling-style racism we're talking about. This is unintentional bias shared by even the African American partners (who, like their white counterparts, gave lower scores to briefs they believed were written by African Americans).

Is Matt crazy to think that NFL GMs are no better at putting aside unconscious bias than those law firm partners are? I don't agree with Matt's conclusion, but I certainly can't call it crazy. It's far less crazy, for sure, than a lot of what's been posted in this thread.

MT I got no problem with your or Matt and I enjoy the work both of you do. You each have a forum to share your opinion and this is mine so please understand its all good

[SIZE=medium]I made my feelings known in this thread a long time ago (when u r a hammer, everything looks like a nail) and pretty much ignored it ever since. NextIQ makes a lot of money by finding bias and promoting diversity (inclusion). They created an experiment to find bias and shockingly the experiment showed that their services were needed. “I am shocked, shocked to find inherent bias going on in here” [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Matt and the woman who founded Nextiq are part of an increasingly politically correct elitist world of academia (hammers) and to them everything looks like a nail (please see earlier post). Diversity and “inclusion” are skin deep, there is no diversity of thought. You want to get anywhere, you get on board with the people giving you the money. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Does racism exist? Of course it does, do Matt and Arin Reeves really know whats going on in people’s minds and inside their hearts? Hell no, but they can believe and pretend they do and as long as other like-minded academics agree with them, well, then you got yourself some irrefutable science and the sky is the limit……..[/SIZE]

great post

 

[GridironMenace]

Looks like FBGs has their own Sterling on staff who can't hide their moronic view points.

Bass, if this was most other posters, it would just be deleted and we'd move on. But I think you're WAY smarter than this.

Two things. Do you even remotely mean this?

And if so, explain in detail how you are saying Matt is like Sterling.

J

Can't believe that no one picked up on this one. Selective punishment is not only accepted but enforced and practiced by a co-owner owner of this site. Sweet!

BTW Sir Bryant, Mr. BassNBrew's post is still up and has not been deleted.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't have a problem with Matt Waldman speaking his mind. I heard what he said and I do not have any problem at all with his view on this. He is a strong believer in Bridgewater's talent and he spoke his mind. I don't doubt that if there was a close call to be made by an old school owner or GM that they could make their final decision based on a person's flavor.

In this situation though I don't think that he is falling due to his race. I think that he is falling because of his body type.

While Matt may have missed or be missing the mark on this one, I could see an old school front office person's opinion being tilted in a close call. I could see things both ways - Martin Mayhew could have the scales tipped on taking a black quarterback...

That being said - If an all-american looking choir Boy Scout looking Rogers could fall back in 2005 then anybody could fall.

The year Newton was drafted he went before Gabbert. The was a lot of talk about Gabbert being more NFL ready. Newton was also carrying a ton of baggage from the Florida incident and the Auburn investigation. That all got chucked out the window and the Panthers selected the guy who was faster, had a bigger body, and had a bigger arm. In 2011 Gabbert was Bridgewater and Newton was Manziel/Bortles.

Yeah - good point.

There probably will be no better case study around that (doesn't Gabbert also have have blonde hair and blue eyes too).

I still don't agree with slamming Waldman. I say let it go - and keep your eyes on how his evaluations pan out in this years RSP. Slam him for that if you want, but not for calling it how he saw it on this issue....

If you want to add to that case study further, Newton was drafted by a team in the deep south by an owner who took over the Denny's helm in 1987 which ended up settling a racial bias lawsuit in 1994 for $54 million. Note that I'm not making a claim that Richardson himself is racist, just pointing out some history.

Regarding Waldmen, when I see someone make a blantantly dumb statement and then hide from it or back it up with facts, I'm not inclined to trust their judgement in the rest of their work.

eta - I previously thought his position was wrong, but the tweet today was just a moronic statment IMO.

 

[BassNBrew]

There's an awful lot of crazy in here.

Sterling has nothing to do with what Matt was talking about in the podcast. Sterling is an out-and-out racist. I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

How confident am I that I am right and Matt is wrong? Only somewhat. Matt's position is not exactly out of left field. It's consistent with lots of studies and experiments in human psychology, even very recent ones. I mentioned in a previous post an experiment where otherwise identical resumes were sent out to companies -- half with black-sounding names and half with white-sounding names. The ones with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews, and the results were statistically significant.

Here is a more recent experiment:

In Written in Black and White, selected law firm partners were asked to evaluate a single research memo into which 22 different errors were deliberately inserted – 7 spelling/grammar errors, 6 substantive writing errors, 5 errors in fact, and 4 analytic errors. Half of the partner evaluators were told that the hypothetical associate author was African American and half were told that the author was Caucasian.

Sadly, you know what’s coming.

On a five point scale, reviews for the exact same memo averaged a 3.2 for the "African American" author and 4.1 for the "Caucasian" author. More surprising were the findings of "objective" criteria such as spelling. The partner evaluators found an average of 2.9 spelling and grammar errors for the "Caucasian" authors and 5.8 such errors for the "African American" authors. Overall the memo presumed to have been written by a "Caucasian" was "evaluated to be better in regards to the analysis of facts and had substantively fewer critical comments."

This is not Donald Sterling-style racism we're talking about. This is unintentional bias shared by even the African American partners (who, like their white counterparts, gave lower scores to briefs they believed were written by African Americans).

Is Matt crazy to think that NFL GMs are no better at putting aside unconscious bias than those law firm partners are? I don't agree with Matt's conclusion, but I certainly can't call it crazy. It's far less crazy, for sure, than a lot of what's been posted in this thread.

MT I got no problem with your or Matt and I enjoy the work both of you do. You each have a forum to share your opinion and this is mine so please understand its all good

[SIZE=medium]I made my feelings known in this thread a long time ago (when u r a hammer, everything looks like a nail) and pretty much ignored it ever since. NextIQ makes a lot of money by finding bias and promoting diversity (inclusion). They created an experiment to find bias and shockingly the experiment showed that their services were needed. “I am shocked, shocked to find inherent bias going on in here” [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Matt and the woman who founded Nextiq are part of an increasingly politically correct elitist world of academia (hammers) and to them everything looks like a nail (please see earlier post). Diversity and “inclusion” are skin deep, there is no diversity of thought. You want to get anywhere, you get on board with the people giving you the money. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Does racism exist? Of course it does, do Matt and Arin Reeves really know whats going on in people’s minds and inside their hearts? Hell no, but they can believe and pretend they do and as long as other like-minded academics agree with them, well, then you got yourself some irrefutable science and the sky is the limit……..[/SIZE]

Are you saying Matt and Arin Reeves are married?

 

[Brewtown]

I don't have a problem with Matt Waldman speaking his mind. I heard what he said and I do not have any problem at all with his view on this. He is a strong believer in Bridgewater's talent and he spoke his mind. I don't doubt that if there was a close call to be made by an old school owner or GM that they could make their final decision based on a person's flavor.

In this situation though I don't think that he is falling due to his race. I think that he is falling because of his body type.

While Matt may have missed or be missing the mark on this one, I could see an old school front office person's opinion being tilted in a close call. I could see things both ways - Martin Mayhew could have the scales tipped on taking a black quarterback...

That being said - If an all-american looking choir Boy Scout looking Rogers could fall back in 2005 then anybody could fall.

The year Newton was drafted he went before Gabbert. The was a lot of talk about Gabbert being more NFL ready. Newton was also carrying a ton of baggage from the Florida incident and the Auburn investigation. That all got chucked out the window and the Panthers selected the guy who was faster, had a bigger body, and had a bigger arm. In 2011 Gabbert was Bridgewater and Newton was Manziel/Bortles.

Yeah - good point.

There probably will be no better case study around that (doesn't Gabbert also have have blonde hair and blue eyes too).

I still don't agree with slamming Waldman. I say let it go - and keep your eyes on how his evaluations pan out in this years RSP. Slam him for that if you want, but not for calling it how he saw it on this issue....

If you want to add to that case study further, Newton was drafted by a team in the deep south by an owner who took over the Denny's helm in 1987 which ended up settling a racial bias lawsuit in 1994 for $54 million. Note that I'm not making a claim that Richardson himself is racist, just pointing out some history.

Regarding Waldmen, when I see someone make a blantantly dumb statement and then hide from it or back it up with facts, I'm not inclined to trust their judgement in the rest of their work.

eta - I previously thought his position was wrong, but the tweet today was just a moronic statment IMO.

I'm not sure what he tweeted, but if he inferred "look-I told you racism could exist at the top level of a professional organization".

Isn't he then right in a way?

I realize that Mr. Sterling has hired/drafted many African Americans etc....

But he "had a racist point if view" and he owns a team...

 

[fatness]

So race baiting is promoted in the Shark Pool?

That's disheartening.

Not as disheartening as seeing this comment on page 13 of this thread. A staff member voices an opinion in a podcast and as a result the Shark Pool is promoting race baiting? Please.

Bronco Billy is Pony Boy, a LONG time poster here. His views on this are not at all surprising if you've read him in the past.

Actually Pony Boy is Bronco Billy - who was here before this site became FBGs (cheatsheets.net) - and neither one clouds the facts of this matter. Not sure why you think the information in your response is in any way pertinent.

I remember Pony Boy. He was a thin-skinned guy, easily angered. He offered me a trade in one fantasy league which I thought was lopsided, and when I made a reasonable counteroffer he came over here to whine about my counteroffer, I think in the Assistant Coach forum.

Let's hear the offer...

It was years ago and the only player I remember of those involved was T. J. Houshmandzadeh. The general consensus was that he got his panties in a bunch over what was a reasonable counteroffer. See if Bronco Billy/Pony Boy/P Boy can dig it up. If he hasn't deleted it.

 

[fatness]

This is the first prediction on this site where this much of a crowd gathered and demanded a retraction or firing because they disagreed with it.

Angry people demanding reparations. Over an opinion.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't have a problem with Matt Waldman speaking his mind. I heard what he said and I do not have any problem at all with his view on this. He is a strong believer in Bridgewater's talent and he spoke his mind. I don't doubt that if there was a close call to be made by an old school owner or GM that they could make their final decision based on a person's flavor.

In this situation though I don't think that he is falling due to his race. I think that he is falling because of his body type.

While Matt may have missed or be missing the mark on this one, I could see an old school front office person's opinion being tilted in a close call. I could see things both ways - Martin Mayhew could have the scales tipped on taking a black quarterback...

That being said - If an all-american looking choir Boy Scout looking Rogers could fall back in 2005 then anybody could fall.

The year Newton was drafted he went before Gabbert. The was a lot of talk about Gabbert being more NFL ready. Newton was also carrying a ton of baggage from the Florida incident and the Auburn investigation. That all got chucked out the window and the Panthers selected the guy who was faster, had a bigger body, and had a bigger arm. In 2011 Gabbert was Bridgewater and Newton was Manziel/Bortles.

Yeah - good point.

There probably will be no better case study around that (doesn't Gabbert also have have blonde hair and blue eyes too).

I still don't agree with slamming Waldman. I say let it go - and keep your eyes on how his evaluations pan out in this years RSP. Slam him for that if you want, but not for calling it how he saw it on this issue....

If you want to add to that case study further, Newton was drafted by a team in the deep south by an owner who took over the Denny's helm in 1987 which ended up settling a racial bias lawsuit in 1994 for $54 million. Note that I'm not making a claim that Richardson himself is racist, just pointing out some history.

Regarding Waldmen, when I see someone make a blantantly dumb statement and then hide from it or back it up with facts, I'm not inclined to trust their judgement in the rest of their work.

eta - I previously thought his position was wrong, but the tweet today was just a moronic statment IMO.

I'm not sure what he tweeted, but if he inferred "look-I told you racism could exist at the top level of a professional organization".

Isn't he then right in a way?

I realize that Mr. Sterling has hired/drafted many African Americans etc....

But he "had a racist point if view" and he owns a team...

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 6m

I'd thank you for adding to the case files Donald Sterling, but I really wish you hadn't. Rather have folks tell me I'm in left field.

If his point was racism exists then I would agree with him, but his point was Bridgewater would drop out of the top ten because of racism. As you mentioned, The Sterling case proves you can have racist views and still hire and draft African Americans. Donald Sterling proves nothing about about Bridgewater's draft stock. Recent NFL draft picks and personal decisions however do add to the case files.

Bottom line is Waldman made a wild accusation totally unsupported by facts, refuted by recent history, and is now flailing away spewing out crazy statements in an attempt to save face.

 

[Neofight]

In my opinion, we are discussing two entirely different topics here when Sterling is interjected into this discussion - and unfortunately it's obvious by Waldman's comment that he cannot distinguish between the two. It's just as unfortunate that he chose to race bait while performing duties as an alleged draft expert, which takes the allegation to a higher level since he elected to tap into his profession to further enhance his credibility.

Sterling is a matter of an individual being a racist and displaying those feelings privately. The initial topic is Waldman's opinion that the NFL is institutionally racist enough that there is a strong possibility that numerous teams will allow a QB to drop through a portion of the draft despite his superior talent for the exclusive reason that those teams don't want a black person playing QB, and doing so acting professionally.

The first is true and IMO is repugnant on the part of Sterling. The second is patently and provably false and is repugnant on the part of Waldman. However, they are very different concepts in that an individual is allegedly racist - which is provably true - and speaking to his concubine; and that an institution engages in racist employment practices regarding a specific job description - and which is provably false. Because Waldman chose to enter into the discussion while acting as a professional, it further erodes whatever credibility he has.

It's particularly unfortunate that the two issues have become entangled, intentionally so as to provide cover for Waldman as he is exposed for the falsehood of the initial premise. Both topics deserve discussion, but - again, IMO - are very, very different. We ought to keep our eye upon the ball and not fall for the misdirection.

There's a lot wrong with this post. First, Sterling is not JUST a matter of an individual being privately racist. He has a long history of racism. So while the current issue regarded his private comments that doesn't make them ( Sterling and Waldmaan's comments) different concepts. Second, you have mischaracterized Waldman's comments. His comments don't have to apply to an "institution"-if you accept his initial premise, that Bridgewater is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick, then one team in need of a QB passing on him would allow for his position to be true. Racism can be a subtle thing and that idea is clearly reflected in Waldman's comments. He specifically mentions "indirect" racism and "nitpicking" -subconsciously due to color/culture. Nowhere did he suggest that some GM is explicitly saying, "we aren't going to draft this guy because he is black".Everyone in here keeps bringing up Cam Newton going #1 (along with a few other names) as if that disproves the notion of indirect racism potentially influencing *at least one team* in the top ten. And yet it's already been mentioned that he was scrutinized for his tattoos. The fact that many black QB 's have been drafted high and numerous white QB's have been drafted low does nothing to refute Waldman's comments. You all think it does but it doesn't. I know right wingers love to think in absolutes but Waldman's comments weren't of an absolutist nature. All he has actually said is:

1) I believe TB is the top QB and worthy of being a top ten pick

2) based on this evaluation, IF he drops out of the top ten THEN there is a good chance it is due to INDIRECT racism (defined as a cultural clash between white culture and black/urban culture, a discomfort with presentation manifested by "nitpicking")

Viewed in this framework, The current Sterling thing is certainly relevant, that there is racism in sports ownership. That racism doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in overt comments like Sterling's.

It's also silly to lump basketball and football together to make the point that Sterling's hiring record refutes Waldman's point. They're significantly different sports in racial makeup and likely in target demographics as well.

Regarding the QB position, I don't see how any thinking person can deny that there is a history of racism. The "athletic" black QB vs the "cerebral" white QB.

I've stayed out of this thread other than the very beginning. This board has ALWAYS had a huge conservative population and the arguments never change, particularly regarding race. With all the right wingers (and I know they aren't all right wingers) frothing at the mouth it's turned into a lynch mob.

I'm quite likely to Waldman's left (worked for Raul Grijalva back in my Tucson days and am of a similar political view to Bernie Sanders on many important social issues). Politics has nothing to do with this. That straw man aside, your points don't really do much to support Waldman's point of view.

Of course politics has something to do with this. It's naive to suggest otherwise. I've already acknowledged that there are left leaning posters who objected to his comments, that doesn't change anything. I'm not sure how long you've been around here, I've been around since the yellow board days. I've seen/been involved in most every (dozens upon dozens) of the discussions involving race, white conservatives here fight tooth and nail to minimize any suggestion of racism and then began the "reverse racism" meme years ago. So it's really not a straw man.Having said that, people just aren't getting it. I'm not necessarily supporting his point of view. There's now 15 pages of people misstating what he said. What he actually said really isn't all that controversial. You can disagree with him but the level of outrage here is beyond ridiculous and it really has turned into a lynch mob (yeah I know it bugs some people that I use that phrase).

As a card carrying pinko commie, please stop with the lynch mob nonsense. It doesn't help his cause or yours (or liberals in general, for that matter).

You injected politics into this. Waldman made a hypothetical scenario (which may or may not actually take place in a few days) about race. The rest has been trying to decipher what is fact from fiction and fallacy. You haven't helped in this department.

I don't care what your politics are. I call it like I see it, and that includes the "lynch mob" comment. 15 pages of people threatening to cancel subscriptions, accusations of "race baiting" when half (or more) of the people posting can't even accurately articulate what exactly was said. I think lynch mob is a pretty accurate metaphor. I don't have a "cause" here so I have no idea wth you are talking about. I just got tired of people inaccurately characterizing what was actually said. And don't act like you speak for "liberals in general".

Distinguishing "fact from fiction and fallacy"? What is there to distinguish? Sigmund Bloom posted a transcript of his remarks-so what is there to distinguish? The rest is a bunch of faux outrage and misinterpretation.

Otherwise, thanks for being the voice of reason /sarcasm

His words don't come across in print any wiser than they did when he said them, and your arguments really are confused. Do you care about people inaccurately characterizing what has been posted multiple times or not? Because by putting your foot down with the hyperbolic "lynch mob" characterization of this thread, you sure seem to be supporting something. What is that?

 

[Neofight]

I still contend the chuckles the boys had over Derek Carr was the low point of the podcast that week

I was more turned off by the constant harping on AJ McCarron. They may be right in their assessment that the kid is a #####, but how many times do you have to drive that point home about someone who just got out of college? It was extremely lacking in professionalism, at the very least.

ETA: interesting that the word that was used extensively on the podcast is filtered on this forum.

 

[GroveDiesel]

God help us if this happens.

http://t.co/YmH5buLydm