PDA

View Full Version : Video Interview with Alphonso Smith


cmhargrove
05-19-2009, 06:30 AM
from denverbroncos.com - probably right after the draft.

Anyway, this kid is well spoken, intelligent, and motivated.

We'll see how the team plays with the lights on, but I really, really like the guys this organization is bringing in. Smith looks solid.

I like the fact that he gave up zero TD's last year. That's another stat like Powell's negative rushing yards that flies under the radar but shows a sort of intensity and consistency I love.

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=609

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 06:46 AM
I like the fact that he gave up zero TD's last year.
So who was covering Darrius Heyward-Bey when he went for 11 catches/101 yards and 1 TD against Wake? I thought Smith took the #1 receiver.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-19-2009, 06:56 AM
So who was covering Darrius Heyward-Bey when he went for 11 catches/101 yards and 1 TD against Wake? I thought Smith took the #1 receiver.

What's it like hating the team that you claim to be a fan of? Is that hard for you? Do you find it to be a waste of your time?

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 07:06 AM
What's it like hating the team that you claim to be a fan of? Is that hard for you? Do you find it to be a waste of your time?
I'm asking a simple question you simpleton.

BMarsh615
05-19-2009, 07:12 AM
So who was covering Darrius Heyward-Bey when he went for 11 catches/101 yards and 1 TD against Wake? I thought Smith took the #1 receiver.

On how many of those catches was Alphonso Smith covering him?

barryr
05-19-2009, 07:21 AM
Considering the Broncos haven't been moving Champ around to cover the other teams' best receivers the last few years, I doubt Smith was covering him much in that game.

From which I have had issues with DC's simply just leaving CB's on one side of the field and they just cover who they get. If you're a smart OC, why would you ever put your best receiver on that side of the field with that teams' best CB if that CB just stays on that side and doesn't move to cover the best receiver no matter where he lines up? I'll put my best receiver on that teams' 2nd best CB all day if the DC isn't going to adjust at all.

My thinking is why not at least put your best CB on the other teams' best receiver on 3rd down, passing situations? Why just keep say your best CB stuck on one side of the field and never adjust?

The Broncos have done this with Champ for awhile now. He just stays on the same side of the field no matter the receiver and of course, he isn't going to face the other teams' best WR since they will move him around so Champ isn't covering him.

I hope this changes as well. Instead of wasting and putting Champ on a receiver the QB won't look to even if Champ wasn't covering the guy, humor me, put Champ on that teams' best WR no matter where he lines up on 3rd downs at least and let's see what happens.

The Joker
05-19-2009, 07:27 AM
They could easily have been playing zone on the DHB TD, with Smith giving him up to the safety on the particular play.

Or maybe they matched him up with someone else, as has been suggested already.

In fact, there are numerous ways that it could have happened.

Still, anything for a good whinge with some people.

Kaylore
05-19-2009, 07:28 AM
On how many of those catches was Alphonso Smith covering him?

Don't bother footsteps with details like the fact Wake Forrest runs a lot of zone or they moved Bey around a lot. He's emotionally invested in hating on this draft and he's lettin' everyone know!

Cito Pelon
05-19-2009, 07:31 AM
I'm asking as simple question you simpleton.

You're digging for negative info on the kid. That's what you're doing.

I'm willing to give the kid a chance. Obviously, it was a crapshoot to trade a future 1 to gain a #37, but the kid has skills and was projected higher than where he was drafted. They were not going to get him unless they rolled the dice.

He's a potential playmaker in the secondary for many a year, and that's a necessary part of a good D.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 07:43 AM
You're digging for negative info on the kid. That's what you're doing.

I'm willing to give the kid a chance. Obviously, it was a crapshoot to trade a future 1 to gain a #37, but the kid has skills and was projected higher than where he was drafted. They were not going to get him unless they rolled the dice.

He's a potential playmaker in the secondary for many a year, and that's a necessary part of a good D.
Negative info? Please. Has this place gotten you so brainwashed you can't even ask a single question without fearing you'll deviate to far outside the lines and be branded a heretic?

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 07:46 AM
Don't bother footsteps with details like the fact Wake Forrest runs a lot of zone or they moved Bey around a lot. He's emotionally invested in hating on this draft and he's lettin' everyone know!
Yes Kahn...you're so right. I have nothing better to do with my time than troll this board looking ceaselessly for any opportunity hate on the draft. I think about it morning, noon and night, laughing with glee at each new nugget I can unearth to demosntrate the inferior mental capacity of our coaches. You should try this some time...it's so much fun.

DenverBrit
05-19-2009, 08:07 AM
Last year, there were a lot of people questioning taking Royal in the 2nd.

There's no reason why Smith couldn't turn out to be as good an investment.

Cito Pelon
05-19-2009, 08:28 AM
Negative info? Please. Has this place gotten you so brainwashed you can't even ask a single question without fearing you'll deviate to far outside the lines and be branded a heretic?

You've been making a pattern of spinning every little thing negatively. Every post of yours is meant to spin everything to reflect on McD negatively. Did you think people missed that? Please.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 08:32 AM
Yes Kahn...you're so right. I have nothing better to do with my time than troll this board looking ceaselessly for any opportunity hate on the draft. I think about it morning, noon and night, laughing with glee at each new nugget I can unearth to demosntrate the inferior mental capacity of our coaches. You should try this some time...it's so much fun.

You actually do though. Anytime someone brings up a positive factoid about any of the coaching staff or the draft, you think of a reason to hate on it.

Lev Vyvanse
05-19-2009, 08:36 AM
So who was covering Darrius Heyward-Bey when he went for 11 catches/101 yards and 1 TD against Wake? I thought Smith took the #1 receiver.

The TD was against Kevin Patterson and Chris Langley.

fontaine
05-19-2009, 08:47 AM
Considering the Broncos haven't been moving Champ around to cover the other teams' best receivers the last few years, I doubt Smith was covering him much in that game.

From which I have had issues with DC's simply just leaving CB's on one side of the field and they just cover who they get. If you're a smart OC, why would you ever put your best receiver on that side of the field with that teams' best CB if that CB just stays on that side and doesn't move to cover the best receiver no matter where he lines up? I'll put my best receiver on that teams' 2nd best CB all day if the DC isn't going to adjust at all.

My thinking is why not at least put your best CB on the other teams' best receiver on 3rd down, passing situations? Why just keep say your best CB stuck on one side of the field and never adjust?

The Broncos have done this with Champ for awhile now. He just stays on the same side of the field no matter the receiver and of course, he isn't going to face the other teams' best WR since they will move him around so Champ isn't covering him.

I hope this changes as well. Instead of wasting and putting Champ on a receiver the QB won't look to even if Champ wasn't covering the guy, humor me, put Champ on that teams' best WR no matter where he lines up on 3rd downs at least and let's see what happens.


You bring up a good point. My gut feeling is that it was done because our safeties suck. With Champ a constant on one side of the field it's a simplified scheme that allows our safeties to swarm/roam one side of the field as opposed to being responsible for or covering both sides. This was compounded by the fact that our run D sucked so much that the safeties were constantly used to key against the run.

My guess is that if you suck as a safety it's much easier to have to make quick/simple reads like flow to one side of the field in pass coverage or swarm to the line of scrimmage instead of having to read or react for both sides of the field and support against the run.

Mind you with the kind of defense we had last year and how often it chopped and changed it's difficult to generalize. Also the amount of injuries we had at the position meant that backups/rookies whatever just found it easier to handle/manage a simplified scheme with Champ stuck to one side.

Kaylore
05-19-2009, 08:49 AM
You actually do though. Anytime someone brings up a positive factoid about any of the coaching staff or the draft, you think of a reason to hate on it.

:rofl: That's what I was thinking when I read his "sarcastic" comment.

Footsteps, is there anything we've done as an organization you like?

barryr
05-19-2009, 08:59 AM
You bring up a good point. My gut feeling is that it was done because our safeties suck. With Champ a constant on one side of the field it's a simplified scheme that allows our safeties to swarm/roam one side of the field as opposed to being responsible for or covering both sides. This was compounded by the fact that our run D sucked so much that the safeties were constantly used to key against the run.

My guess is that if you suck as a safety it's much easier to have to make quick/simple reads like flow to one side of the field in pass coverage or swarm to the line of scrimmage instead of having to read or react for both sides of the field and support against the run.

Mind you with the kind of defense we had last year and how often it chopped and changed it's difficult to generalize. Also the amount of injuries we had at the position meant that backups/rookies whatever just found it easier to handle/manage a simplified scheme with Champ stuck to one side.

Great point. That's probably the reasoning. If not that, then hard to figure what it would be.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 11:14 AM
The TD was against Kevin Patterson and Chris Langley.
Finally...someone who knows how to answer a question. Thanks for checking.

Flex Gunmetal
05-19-2009, 11:18 AM
Negative info? Please. Has this place gotten you so brainwashed you can't even ask a single question without fearing you'll deviate to far outside the lines and be branded a heretic?
Yes Kahn...you're so right. I have nothing better to do with my time than troll this board looking ceaselessly for any opportunity hate on the draft. I think about it morning, noon and night, laughing with glee at each new nugget I can unearth to demosntrate the inferior mental capacity of our coaches. You should try this some time...it's so much fun.

See? The best trolls know how to use a thesaurus.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 11:19 AM
See? The best trolls know how to use a thesaurus.
I'm not a troll you nitwit.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 11:21 AM
:rofl: That's what I was thinking when I read his "sarcastic" comment.

Footsteps, is there anything we've done as an organization you like?
Yep... http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2416652&highlight=seth#post2416652

"More on this kid...I'll give McD some props for taking a high character guy here. Much as I've bashed him...if he reverses the Shanny trend of thugs and idiots we've seen parade through here he will go a long way towards making me at least try to put the Cutler thing in the rear view mirror."

Flex Gunmetal
05-19-2009, 11:21 AM
I'm not a troll you nitwit.

Yes you are.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 11:27 AM
Yes you are.
Learn what a troll is you little turd. Just because I don't care for the moves this rookie coach and this rookie GM have made doesn't make me a troll...it makes me a fan expressing an opinion, what this board is for in the first place.

Dagmar
05-19-2009, 11:29 AM
I'm not a troll you nitwit.

http://blogs.townonline.com/cambridge/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/lol1.jpg

Flex Gunmetal
05-19-2009, 11:32 AM
b**** b**** moan moan whine :vermeil: :vermeil: :vermeil:

Perhaps you should express yourself in a less abrasive and negative manner?

cmhargrove
05-19-2009, 11:37 AM
What happened to my thread?

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 11:37 AM
Perhaps you should express yourself in a less abrasive and negative manner?

LMAO!!! Hilarious!

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 11:38 AM
Perhaps you should express yourself in a less abrasive and negative manner?
Being abrasive and negataive is a legitimate communications tool on an internete discussion board. In case you've not noticed, there are a few things to be disturbed about lately. It's the offseason and until this regime actually starts showing it can handle the job put before it, moves like the things we've seen recently will continue to provoke questions about whether we're moving in the right direction or not. Don't like it? To bad...read something else then.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 11:40 AM
What happened to my thread?
The thread jackers got it.

I watched the interview and I agree. He comes off well spoken and intelligent, unlike some of the idiots in here.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 11:53 AM
The thread jackers got it.

I watched the interview and I agree. He comes off well spoken and intelligent, unlike some of the idiots in here.

Ironic

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 11:56 AM
Ironic
Yes you are.

s0phr0syne
05-19-2009, 12:04 PM
Say what you will about footsteps and his negative posts, I think it brings something important to the discussion board. Is it clear that he's lost a lot of rational thinking and objectivity to maintain his skepticism...I dunno, that's up to you to decide, but the threads on this board would be a helluva a lot more boring if everyone jumped on the happy wagon a la Popps or something.

A new coaching staff deserves skepticism. We haven't had one in a while, and we knew what we were getting with Shanahan for a long time now (for better or worse).

Do we know whether Nolan/McD typically like to run zone or man coverage schemes? Like other posters, I'd be in favor of letting Champ cover the best receivers like he was doing against Moss @NE (pre-random groin tear). Alphonso likewise could be an asset against the smaller,quicker receivers (slot or otherwise) like Santonio, Steve Smith, etc. I'm looking forward to seeing if McD sticks by his word and deploys Goodman/A.Smith according to the matchups the Broncos face in any given week.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 12:06 PM
Yes you are.

oooh, good one

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 12:08 PM
Yes you are.

What are you, 5 years old?

Hey, whatever floats your boat :thumbs:

gyldenlove
05-19-2009, 12:16 PM
I find it ironic that we are still surprised that people with 2+ years of college education are well spoken and coherent. I know that a lot of State schools aren't exactly top notch, but have we really lowered our expectations so far as to expect them to graduate nothing more than strategically shaved gorillas?

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 12:20 PM
What are you, 5 years old?
Says the guy called "Rubber Duckie"...amusing.

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 12:22 PM
Say what you will about footsteps and his negative posts, I think it brings something important to the discussion board. Is it clear that he's lost a lot of rational thinking and objectivity to maintain his skepticism...I dunno, that's up to you to decide, but the threads on this board would be a helluva a lot more boring if everyone jumped on the happy wagon a la Popps or something.

A new coaching staff deserves skepticism. We haven't had one in a while, and we knew what we were getting with Shanahan for a long time now (for better or worse).

Do we know whether Nolan/McD typically like to run zone or man coverage schemes? Like other posters, I'd be in favor of letting Champ cover the best receivers like he was doing against Moss @NE (pre-random groin tear). Alphonso likewise could be an asset against the smaller,quicker receivers (slot or otherwise) like Santonio, Steve Smith, etc. I'm looking forward to seeing if McD sticks by his word and deploys Goodman/A.Smith according to the matchups the Broncos face in any given week.

I agree to an extent. Skepticism is more than welcome at this point in Broncos football... who knows what kind of football team is going to be fielded when the season starts. However, overt pessimism is simply unwarranted if you are a true Broncos fan. Skepticism? Sure! Hell, I'm skeptic as all hell, but that doesn't mean I don't have an optimistic hope for the team.

Simply put, you can choose between being pessimistic and being optimistic, and quite frankly its the difference between choosing being negative and being positive. Who in the hell likes someone that's negative all the time (i.e. footsteps)? NO ONE!

One can be positive (optimistic) and still be skeptical. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to be pessimistic (negative), but why? What's the point? Why would someone ever choose being negative over being positive if they truly want/hope for the best of the team? I don't get it. Honestly, the only thing I can think of is that either footsteps revels in the attention he gets from being a pessimist or he doesn't want the best for the new Broncos organization, and the sad thing is that I am probably right.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 12:22 PM
I find it ironic that we are still surprised that people with 2+ years of college education are well spoken and coherent. I know that a lot of State schools aren't exactly top notch, but have we really lowered our expectations so far as to expect them to graduate nothing more than strategically shaved gorillas?
Wake Forest is a private school.

Flex Gunmetal
05-19-2009, 12:24 PM
Being abrasive and negataive is a legitimate communications tool on an internete discussion board. In case you've not noticed, there are a few things to be disturbed about lately. It's the offseason and until this regime actually starts showing it can handle the job put before it, moves like the things we've seen recently will continue to provoke questions about whether we're moving in the right direction or not. Don't like it? To bad...read something else then.

It's offseason and until this regime actually starts showing it can't handle the job put before it, I'll wait and see.
Our HC set offensive points records 2 years ago as a OC, and our DC is versed in our newly adopted D-Scheme. We've signed some solid FA's instead of splurge on dog**** (Mcree, Niko K, T Henry, J Walker etc), and drafted BPA as opposed to spending picks on positional needs when the potential draftees weren't worth the picks.
In the 4 years since a playoff appearance this team has been stagnant. I dont see why one wouldn't welcome change, considering the underachievement we've put up with as fans.

Beantown Bronco
05-19-2009, 12:25 PM
I find it ironic that we are still surprised that people with 2+ years of college education are well spoken and coherent. I know that a lot of State schools aren't exactly top notch, but have we really lowered our expectations so far as to expect them to graduate nothing more than strategically shaved gorillas?

*cough* Patrick Ewing *cough*

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 12:40 PM
I agree to an extent. Skepticism is more than welcome at this point in Broncos football... who knows what kind of football team is going to be fielded when the season starts. However, overt pessimism is simply unwarranted if you are a true Broncos fan. Skepticism? Sure! Hell, I'm skeptic as all hell, but that doesn't mean I don't have an optimistic hope for the team.

Simply put, you can choose between being pessimistic and being optimistic, and quite frankly its the difference between choosing being negative and being positive. Who in the hell likes someone that's negative all the time (i.e. footsteps)? NO ONE!

One can be positive (optimistic) and still be skeptical. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to be pessimistic (negative), but why? What's the point? Why would someone ever choose being negative over being positive if they truly want/hope for the best of the team? I don't get it. Honestly, the only thing I can think of is that either footsteps revels in the attention he gets from being a pessimist or he doesn't want the best for the new Broncos organization, and the sad thing is that I am probably right.
The sad thing is you have no idea what defines a real fan yet you think you have the right to tell those of us who are real fans that we're not because you don't like what we have to say. REAL fans don't try to define how good other fans are based on their opinions of what the team needs to do or not do.

You think because you are so emotionally tied to this team that you're unable to objectively evaluate or criticize what are clearly questionable moves and accepted by most outside the close proximity of the homers in the fan base as being so, that makes you somehow a better fan. That is pure BS. What makes one a good fan is stickiing with a team over time...more time than you've been around to follow this team. When you suffer through another decade of or two of dissapontment and continue to faithfully follow a team you can start dishing out an opinion on who is and who isn't a good fan or what makes one. Right now you're just a guy who can't handle seeing things as they are so you've constructed a little cacoon around you that makes you feel isolated from reality.

What you see as pessimism is an attempt to get you to use your head for something other than a hat rack. If you want to swallow every syllable that comes from the owner and the coach on the team, who am I to object? I'm not interested in questioning the team loyalty of people who seem deluded by their own emotions, so why are you invested in doing so when someone takes a strong point of view on what they believe is the truth? I never go into any discussion with the objective of simpy "being negative"...I go in with the attempt to accurately reflect what I see as the reality of the situation.

As I stated in the post I linked to above, I see at least one thing I can respect with the new regime, the apparent desire to avoid guys with low character or personal issues. That was a huge issue with Shanahan and if you search this board you will find that I've consistently said so. If McDaniels sticks with that philosophy and doesn't waver, he'll have earned a measure of respect. So far I'm not impressed by the rest of what I've seen and neither are a lot of people. Most of us probably hope we're wrong. It's the height of stupidity to start telling people that just because we see somthing that we think is wrong, that means we're glad we see it, which is essentially what you and a lot of other people in here are saying. You have no right to do so. Our opinions are as valid as yours whether you like them or not.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 12:41 PM
It's offseason and until this regime actually starts showing it can't handle the job put before it, I'll wait and see.
Our HC set offensive points records 2 years ago as a OC, and our DC is versed in our newly adopted D-Scheme. We've signed some solid FA's instead of splurge on dog**** (Mcree, Niko K, T Henry, J Walker etc), and drafted BPA as opposed to spending picks on positional needs when the potential draftees weren't worth the picks.
In the 4 years since a playoff appearance this team has been stagnant. I dont see why one wouldn't welcome change, considering the underachievement we've put up with as fans.
I was one of the people who called for change. That doesn't mean I have to rubber stamp everything this team does just so we can have change for the sake of change. Why do you not get that?

Kaylore
05-19-2009, 12:42 PM
Being abrasive and negataive is a legitimate communications tool on an internete discussion board. In case you've not noticed, there are a few things to be disturbed about lately. It's the offseason and until this regime actually starts showing it can handle the job put before it, moves like the things we've seen recently will continue to provoke questions about whether we're moving in the right direction or not. Don't like it? To bad...read something else then.
:spit:

Did footsteps just say his trolling is legitimate?

http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/images/devcentral_f5_com/weblogs/macvittie/WindowsLiveWriter/CongratulationsYouareamoron_7EBF/InternetToughGuy_2.jpg

:welcome:

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 12:51 PM
:spit:

Did footsteps just say his trolling is legitimate?

http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/images/devcentral_f5_com/weblogs/macvittie/WindowsLiveWriter/CongratulationsYouareamoron_7EBF/InternetToughGuy_2.jpg

:welcome:
You can easily find hundreds of threads on this board that I've started or responded to that have nothing to do with bagging on the team. If you don't know that, it's because you aren't paying attention. Or perhaps you do but you're to wrapped up in proving some point that you'd like to ignore it. What "internet tough guy" has to do with anything is something I'm sure only your mind has constructed.

Kaylore
05-19-2009, 01:08 PM
You can say whatever you want, Footsteps. No one is arguing that you can't. However your hyperbolic complaining about the team when no game has been played is growing tiresome to many. You mentioned yourself you wanted change, and when that change is made your complaining only increases. You harp on virtually every move we've made, and it's rarely with anything well thought out. It's usually some sarcastic comment that we can all see you have impressed yourself with terribly, when it often just makes you look cartoonish. If some disagree, you just become more shrill and juvenile.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with moves and making predictions about the team or whatever. I agree with an earlier poster in that dissenting opinion makes for more interesting reading here. Unfortunately you're hysteria over really nothing, and your incessant complaining with each move has you coming off as an overbearing troll. You hate the Shanahan regime. He's gone, and now you hate the McDaniels regime (before a game has even been played!) It's become clear to me that you don't really like anything that anyone does and just like complaining. And obviously I'm not the only one here who thinks so.

DBroncos4life
05-19-2009, 01:14 PM
Say what you will about footsteps and his negative posts, I think it brings something important to the discussion board. Is it clear that he's lost a lot of rational thinking and objectivity to maintain his skepticism...I dunno, that's up to you to decide, but the threads on this board would be a helluva a lot more boring if everyone jumped on the happy wagon a la Popps or something.

A new coaching staff deserves skepticism. We haven't had one in a while, and we knew what we were getting with Shanahan for a long time now (for better or worse).

Do we know whether Nolan/McD typically like to run zone or man coverage schemes? Like other posters, I'd be in favor of letting Champ cover the best receivers like he was doing against Moss @NE (pre-random groin tear). Alphonso likewise could be an asset against the smaller,quicker receivers (slot or otherwise) like Santonio, Steve Smith, etc. I'm looking forward to seeing if McD sticks by his word and deploys Goodman/A.Smith according to the matchups the Broncos face in any given week.

No we should all get on board with McD or he will trade our ass.

gyldenlove
05-19-2009, 01:16 PM
Wake Forest is a private school.

It was a more general comment about how surprised people are when they see a football player who can form complete sentences without drooling on himself.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 01:23 PM
You can say whatever you want, Footsteps. No one is arguing that you can't. However your hyperbolic complaining about the team when no game has been played is growing tiresome to many. You mentioned yourself you wanted change, and when that change is made your complaining only increases. You harp on virtually every move we've made, and it's rarely with anything well thought out. It's usually some sarcastic comment that we can all see you have impressed yourself with terribly, when it often just makes you look cartoonish. If some disagree, you just become more shrill and juvenile.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with moves and making predictions about the team or whatever. I agree with an earlier poster in that dissenting opinion makes for more interesting reading here. Unfortunately you're hysteria over really nothing, and your incessant complaining with each move has you coming off as an overbearing troll. You hate the Shanahan regime. He's gone, and now you hate the McDaniels regime (before a game has even been played!) It's become clear to me that you don't really like anything that anyone does and just like complaining. And obviously I'm not the only one here who thinks so.
Well you're the arbitrator of what is and is not acceptable on this board aren't you?

This probably comes as a shock to you...but I neither care nor spend 2 seconds worrying about what you want or don't want to hear from me. You're part of the little boys club who needs this place as a social networking forum.

And EVERYTHING I say on this board is well thought out.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 01:35 PM
It was a more general comment about how surprised people are when they see a football player who can form complete sentences without drooling on himself.

I know people will bag on me for this, but this is a result of the lingering racism in this country. Yes, we've come a long way, but anytime an african american football player comes off as thoughtful and/or lucid, its usually mentioned as some sort of compliment, implying that the prevailing thought of young african american athletes is that they are not intelligent.

Look no further than how people complimented Foxworth on this site. Though it did create one of my all time fav mane quotes: "dominique foxworth talks like a 40 year old law student"

Hulamau
05-19-2009, 01:37 PM
Well lets give him a chance, Footsteps took a liking to Olsen when he finally read an article longer than a sound bite about him.

And at least now he noticed that Fonze is 'well-spoken' after seeing that clip, so that's a start.

Here's a clip that maybe adds a little more about the kid ... maybe not enough for the real curmudgeons among us, but worth a look in any
event for added perspective.

For some people, the glass is always half empty, that's okay keeps life interesting :-)

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80f92576/NFL-Draft-Vignette-Alphonso-Smith

gyldenlove
05-19-2009, 01:44 PM
I know people will bag on me for this, but this is a result of the lingering racism in this country. Yes, we've come a long way, but anytime an african american football player comes off as thoughtful and/or lucid, its usually mentioned as some sort of compliment, implying that the prevailing thought of young african american athletes is that they are not intelligent.

Look no further than how people complimented Foxworth on this site. Though it did create one of my all time fav mane quotes: "dominique foxworth talks like a 40 year old law student"

You are probably right, although I think there is also a connection to guys like Allen Iverson who for all we know may still be talking about practice. Everytime a dim bulb like him gets face time on TV all the stereotypes about stupid black athletes get reinforced and people will sit back and be content that even though they don't make as much money, are not as big, strong, fast or has as easy access to tail, at least they are not stupid.

cutthemdown
05-19-2009, 01:44 PM
So who was covering Darrius Heyward-Bey when he went for 11 catches/101 yards and 1 TD against Wake? I thought Smith took the #1 receiver.

Actually in football CBS rarely chase WR from one side to the other and instead guard the side of the football field they are on. The WR will often go from one side to the other making the final stat line impossible to match up with a defender.

The only way you can know is to watch the games or talk to someone who watched the games. You have to know how the plays went down not just look at some stat line.

With all the football you have watched you would think you would know that. Weird to me that you didn't.

When was the last time you say Champ Bailey try and chase a WR all over the field? It only happens rarely as most d coord feel if you do that the offense will motion like crazy and wear out you d-backs who would have to chase them even before the snap.

You do see it but not often.

What happened with Bey and Smith, I don't know, I didn't watch the game. Which is why you have to wait to see players perform in the pros instead of just going back and looking at the stats from each game.

mr007
05-19-2009, 02:25 PM
I know people will bag on me for this, but this is a result of the lingering racism in this country. Yes, we've come a long way, but anytime an african american football player comes off as thoughtful and/or lucid, its usually mentioned as some sort of compliment, implying that the prevailing thought of young african american athletes is that they are not intelligent.

Look no further than how people complimented Foxworth on this site. Though it did create one of my all time fav mane quotes: "dominique foxworth talks like a 40 year old law student"

In my opinion, you're subbing racism for stereotyping. Personally, I stereotype many in southern California to be completely superficial and generally unambitious with inherited wealth. Does that generalization apply to everyone?? Of course not, but it does have it's accuracies =).

In the NFL, the majority of the prolific athletes happen to be black. Personally, I wouldn't be trying all that hard to get a good college education if I knew my physical skill set would be earning me millions of dollars a year.

The fact is, people stereotype certain athletes (football, hockey, baseball to an extent) to be unintelligent. The fact that they're black or white really makes little difference. If I had a nickle for every time someone insinuated I was a dip**** because I'm in great shape, I'd have a good amount of money saved up.

Kaylore
05-19-2009, 02:30 PM
And EVERYTHING I say on this board is well thought out.

See now you're just making yourself look bad.

cutthemdown
05-19-2009, 02:42 PM
In my opinion, you're subbing racism for stereotyping. Personally, I stereotype many in southern California to be completely superficial and generally unambitious with inherited wealth. Does that generalization apply to everyone?? Of course not, but it does have it's accuracies =).

In the NFL, the majority of the prolific athletes happen to be black. Personally, I wouldn't be trying all that hard to get a good college education if I knew my physical skill set would be earning me millions of dollars a year.

The fact is, people stereotype certain athletes (football, hockey, baseball to an extent) to be unintelligent. The fact that they're black or white really makes little difference. If I had a nickle for every time someone insinuated I was a dip**** because I'm in great shape, I'd have a good amount of money saved up.

It's not a black white thing. Jocks are always the stupid ones at the schools. Sure some are smart but most aren't as smart as the student who isn't a jock.

Not everything is racism, some of it is actually true. Guys on the Chess team are dorks, jocks are dumb, and cheerleaders are easy.

Now is that true all the time, no way, nothing is. Some Chess dudes are cool, some jocks are smart, and some cheerleaders are good girls.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 03:07 PM
It's not a black white thing. Jocks are always the stupid ones at the schools. Sure some are smart but most aren't as smart as the student who isn't a jock.

Not everything is racism, some of it is actually true. Guys on the Chess team are dorks, jocks are dumb, and cheerleaders are easy.

Now is that true all the time, no way, nothing is. Some Chess dudes are cool, some jocks are smart, and some cheerleaders are good girls.

Bull. Its definitely a black/white thing. I never hear people surprised when white athletes are well spoken. its always a compliment given to black athletes. Yes, its stereotyping, but its a stereotype of a BLACK ATHLETE. Racism.

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 03:21 PM
Well you're the arbitrator of what is and is not acceptable on this board aren't you?

This probably comes as a shock to you...but I neither care nor spend 2 seconds worrying about what you want or don't want to hear from me. You're part of the little boys club who needs this place as a social networking forum.

And EVERYTHING I say on this board is well thought out.


Haha, I found my first "ignore"!

People like you, and your overly negative posts just aren't worth my time. You are the definition of a troll and everyone but yourself can see it.

cutthemdown
05-19-2009, 03:30 PM
Bull. Its definitely a black/white thing. I never hear people surprised when white athletes are well spoken. its always a compliment given to black athletes. Yes, its stereotyping, but its a stereotype of a BLACK ATHLETE. Racism.

Well we could sort the wonderlic by race and see if the stereotype sticks, but people have been making fun of the jocks being stupid even before they started letting the blacks play with the whites.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 03:40 PM
Well we could sort the wonderlic by race and see if the stereotype sticks, but people have been making fun of the jocks being stupid even before they started letting the blacks play with the whites.

I agree theres a stereotype with jocks in general, but this particular one is one ive always seen associated with black athletes

Paladin
05-19-2009, 03:52 PM
Negative info? Please. Has this place gotten you so brainwashed you can't even ask a single question without fearing you'll deviate to far outside the lines and be branded a heretic?

Well, you are a heretic....

I am sure the mullets would welcome you to the Planet.....

PRBronco
05-19-2009, 03:56 PM
Bull. Its definitely a black/white thing. I never hear people surprised when white athletes are well spoken. its always a compliment given to black athletes. Yes, its stereotyping, but its a stereotype of a BLACK ATHLETE. Racism.

Haha, I was actually reading a blurb in GQ the other day about the things white people do that annoy black people the most, and one was something like "you feel the need to complement us on being well spoken".

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:01 PM
I agree theres a stereotype with jocks in general, but this particular one is one ive always seen associated with black athletes

Again, you're taking the stereotype with jocks and applying it to the NFL, where more than 90% of the jocks happen to be black.

In my high school, 90% of the jocks happened to be white. Does that make my school racist for considering them dumb?

I think the race card is simply overused in today's society, but to each their own.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 04:08 PM
Haha, I was actually reading a blurb in GQ the other day about the things white people do that annoy black people the most, and one was something like "you feel the need to complement us on being well spoken".

HAHA see! Thanks, i win.

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:10 PM
HAHA see! Thanks, i win.

By your logic, that quote in itself is racist towards white people.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 04:10 PM
Again, you're taking the stereotype with jocks and applying it to the NFL, where more than 90% of the jocks happen to be black.

In my high school, 90% of the jocks happened to be white. Does that make my school racist for considering them dumb?

I think the race card is simply overused in today's society, but to each their own.

Again, this is never a comment i hear associated with WHITE athletes, so its racist. And see that GQ thing above.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 04:11 PM
By your logic, that quote in itself is racist towards white people.

Umm, how exactly?

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:23 PM
Again, this is never a comment i hear associated with WHITE athletes, so its racist. And see that GQ thing above.

95% of the NFL athletes are black dumbass.

Here let me break it down for you on who I think is not well-spoken as a BLACK athlete:

Chad Johnson, Travis Henry, Emmitt Smith, Chris Henry, Desean Jackson, Antonio Bryant, Steve Smith, Randy Moss, TO, Clinton Portis, Stephen Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, blah blah blah.

Not that I can really name that many white athletes in the NFL, but ones that I would consider not well-spoken:

Jared Allen, ummm.... damn hmmm can't really think of much more. Do you know why? Because there are hardly any white ATHLETES in the freakin' NFL and even less that aren't well-spoken (I generalize having to be a little more well-spoken as a Quarterback).

I guess that makes me a racist. Now I wouldn't make the comment "wow, he's well spoken" but I can see where the "stereotype" comes from that NFL athletes are not well-spoken because it's true.

Just like I think WWF wrestlers aren't well-spoken. Wait.... most of them are white... that must make me racist for thinking that.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 04:29 PM
95% of the NFL athletes are black dumbass.

Here let me break it down for you on who I think is not well-spoken as a BLACK athlete:

Chad Johnson, Travis Henry, Emmitt Smith, Chris Henry, Desean Jackson, Antonio Bryant, Steve Smith, Randy Moss, TO, Clinton Portis, Stephen Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, blah blah blah.

Not that I can really name that many white athletes in the NFL, but ones that I would consider not well-spoken:

Jared Allen, ummm.... damn hmmm can't really think of much more. Do you know why? Because there are hardly any white ATHLETES in the freakin' NFL and even less that aren't well-spoken (I generalize having to be a little more well-spoken as a Quarterback).

I guess that makes me a racist. Now I wouldn't make the comment "wow, he's well spoken" but I can see where the "stereotype" comes from that NFL athletes are not well-spoken because it's true.

Just like I think WWF wrestlers aren't well-spoken. Wait.... most of them are white... that must make me racist for thinking that.

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT ASSHOLE!!!!! ****, it drives me absolutely crazy when dumbasses like yourself continue to argue the point IM NOT MAKING!!!!!!!!!

So let me explain this again.

White people continuously compliment a black player as being "well-spoken" when he doesnt sound like a complete dumbass. These compliments are NOT normally given to white athletes. Im not saying white people are not also dumbasses, im saying people arent' "surprised" enough when a white athlete is well spoken to point it out. This is something that happens ALL THE TIME...hence the GQ quote.

SO DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 04:32 PM
95% of the NFL athletes are black dumbass.

Here let me break it down for you on who I think is not well-spoken as a BLACK athlete:

Chad Johnson, Travis Henry, Emmitt Smith, Chris Henry, Desean Jackson, Antonio Bryant, Steve Smith, Randy Moss, TO, Clinton Portis, Stephen Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, blah blah blah.

Not that I can really name that many white athletes in the NFL, but ones that I would consider not well-spoken:

Jared Allen, ummm.... damn hmmm can't really think of much more. Do you know why? Because there are hardly any white ATHLETES in the freakin' NFL and even less that aren't well-spoken (I generalize having to be a little more well-spoken as a Quarterback).

I guess that makes me a racist. Now I wouldn't make the comment "wow, he's well spoken" but I can see where the "stereotype" comes from that NFL athletes are not well-spoken because it's true.

Just like I think WWF wrestlers aren't well-spoken. Wait.... most of them are white... that must make me racist for thinking that.

lmao, 95%? It's closer to 70% of the nfl are blacks.... "dumbass."

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:36 PM
Im not saying white people are not also dumbasses, im saying people arent' "surprised" enough when a white athlete is well spoken to point it out.

Your argument was that it was racism. My argument is that it's stereotyping =).

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:39 PM
lmao, 95%? It's closer to 70% of the nfl are blacks.... "dumbass."

LMAO, thanks guy!

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 04:39 PM
Your argument was that it was racism. My argument is that it's stereotyping =).

Ummm since when are the two mutually exclusive?

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:40 PM
Ummm since when are the two mutually exclusive?

they aren't!

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 04:41 PM
they aren't!

exactly...so they can be both!

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 04:44 PM
Your argument was that it was racism. My argument is that it's stereotyping =).

Stereotyping based on race IS racism

Hence: Racism
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

The underlying message when people comment about blacks above par speaking skills is because of the common belief that blacks (here the racism comes in) in general are not well speakers, or certainly are not as well of speakers as whites are. When in reality, the speaking ability of anyone has nothing to do with their skin color - and thus no one should be "surprised" when a black man can speak well, much less be comment worthy.

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 04:47 PM
For example, if I were to say
"President Obama is a great speaker for a black person!"
Racist

"President Obama is a great speaker!"
Not racist.

Get it?

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 04:48 PM
I know people will bag on me for this, but this is a result of the lingering racism in this country. Yes, we've come a long way, but anytime an african american football player comes off as thoughtful and/or lucid, its usually mentioned as some sort of compliment, implying that the prevailing thought of young african american athletes is that they are not intelligent.

Look no further than how people complimented Foxworth on this site. Though it did create one of my all time fav mane quotes: "dominique foxworth talks like a 40 year old law student"
If this was directed toward my earlier post, I said he appears well spoken and intelligent because he does...not because he's black.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-19-2009, 04:49 PM
If this was directed toward my earlier post, I said he appears well spoken and intelligent because he does...not because he's black.

I dont remember where it came from...i think it was more of a general thought (brought up by gylden), not necessarily your specific post

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:52 PM
exactly...so they can be both!

I agree I was just arguing for the sake of arguing.;D

mr007
05-19-2009, 04:57 PM
For example, if I were to say
"President Obama is a great speaker for a black person!"
Racist

"President Obama is a great speaker!"
Not racist.

Get it?

I didn't get it before. But I get it now!

So if I was to say "Bolt is really fast!!!!!"
Not racist

"Bolt is really fast for a black guy"
Racist

OR:

"Peyton Hillis is really fast!!!!!"
Not racist

"Peyton Hillis is really fast for a white guy!!!!"
Racist

Unless I'm white or black respectively for those scenarios, right? Because then I could say whatever and it wouldn't be racist? I'm saying I could say certain things without personally being racist even if they could be interpreted as such.

Lev Vyvanse
05-19-2009, 05:07 PM
Actually in football CBS rarely chase WR from one side to the other and instead guard the side of the football field they are on. The WR will often go from one side to the other making the final stat line impossible to match up with a defender.

The only way you can know is to watch the games or talk to someone who watched the games. You have to know how the plays went down not just look at some stat line.

With all the football you have watched you would think you would know that. Weird to me that you didn't.

When was the last time you say Champ Bailey try and chase a WR all over the field? It only happens rarely as most d coord feel if you do that the offense will motion like crazy and wear out you d-backs who would have to chase them even before the snap.

You do see it but not often.

What happened with Bey and Smith, I don't know, I didn't watch the game. Which is why you have to wait to see players perform in the pros instead of just going back and looking at the stats from each game.

Not with the internet.
Just go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjaBWuo4zATime: 6:05
See that #10 and #17 were covering him during the TD and most of his catches were not against Alphonso Smith. The only catch I could find was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzgh6GzdVVYTime: 0:45
Alphonso got a hand on the ball and Darrius catches the ball on his back.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 05:08 PM
Well lets give him a chance, Footsteps took a liking to Olsen when he finally read an article longer than a sound bite about him.

And at least now he noticed that Fonze is 'well-spoken' after seeing that clip, so that's a start.

Here's a clip that maybe adds a little more about the kid ... maybe not enough for the real curmudgeons among us, but worth a look in any
event for added perspective.

For some people, the glass is always half empty, that's okay keeps life interesting :-)

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80f92576/NFL-Draft-Vignette-Alphonso-Smith
Actually I read quite a bit on all these guys, probably more than most people in here. Just so you know...after the draft I spent time examining everything I could find on each of these playes, much of which has never been posted on this board by anyone...and in the case of the skill positions, I also looked up NCAA statistics game-by-game for each of these guys. I also look for information in places most people don't, including college newspaper stories that typically don't appear high on ghe Google list...because you can find stuff there you can't find elsewhere. For Alphonso Smith I looked up his opponents for each game to see who he faced and how they did, which is why I was aware that the Maryland kid had a big game against Wake Forest. Knowing he probably took the top receiver, it's a natural question to ask about who was covering him, wouldn't you agree?

Despite what Kalore said, I never "hated" the Shanahan regime, and in fact spent time defending it in many cases, but it was obvious a change was needed because the game had passed Mike by and Bowlen didn't seem capable of fixing things up till this past few months. Before that change happened, I and several other people in here were calling for it, usually to a chorus of people telling us we were nuts and predicting dire consequences if such a move were made. Most of those same people are now hollering equally loudly for this guy and blasting Shanahan as if they were on board with him leaving from the start, which they weren't. Unlike a lot of people, I don't mix my emotions with how the team does, which means I'm not motivated either to praise or to criticize, but instead I look at any one situation on its merrits alone, and comment on it how I see it...nothing more.

Just as there are several draft picks I found foolish or questionable, there were several I also liked, including the Moreno pick, but also the picks of Schlueter and Olsen, plus the McKinney pick...and I think the UDFA crop look like good finds as well. I question the Quinn, Smith and to a lesser extent the McBath picks...and for that I'm considered a hater or negative about the team's fortunes. Whatever...in the off season that's what it's about anyway...questioning things, examingng things, predicting things...once the season gets here virtually everyone here including me is rooting on every move done by the coaches and the staff and hoping for the best.

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 05:12 PM
I didn't get it before. But I get it now!

So if I was to say "Bolt is really fast!!!!!"
Not racist

"Bolt is really fast for a black guy"
Racist

OR:

"Peyton Hillis is really fast!!!!!"
Not racist

"Peyton Hillis is really fast for a white guy!!!!"
Racist

Unless I'm white or black respectively for those scenarios, right? Because then I could say whatever and it wouldn't be racist? I'm saying I could say certain things without personally being racist even if they could be interpreted as such.

It's ok, it takes some people longer than others 8')

"I'm saying I could say certain things without personally being racist even if they could be interpreted as such."

At that point it just becomes completely ambiguous as to what the writer/speaker (vocally opinionated person) truly means by their statement.

Haha, that's like calling a girl curvy... some may take it as an insult, others as a compliment. Who knew what the person who was giving the compliment intended it as.

RubberDuckie24
05-19-2009, 05:16 PM
Not with the internet.
Just go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjaBWuo4zATime: 6:05
See that #10 and #17 were covering him during the TD and most of his catches were not against Alphonso Smith. The only catch I could find was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzgh6GzdVVYTime: 0:45
Alphonso got a hand on the ball and Darrius catches the ball on his back.

Excellent find. Notice how Alfonso Smith (the really slow, short one) was right there with the fastest 40 runner in the draft? He played it practically perfectly, DHB just made a really nice catch (albeit a bit lucky).

Lev Vyvanse
05-19-2009, 05:20 PM
Excellent find. Notice how Alfonso Smith (the really slow, short one) was right there with the fastest 40 runner in the draft? He played it practically perfectly, DHB just made a really nice catch (albeit a bit lucky).

It was over under coverage #9 ****up badly. It wasn't almost perfect, it was perfect if #9 does his job thats a pick but he got sucked up by the play action.

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 05:21 PM
Actually in football CBS rarely chase WR from one side to the other and instead guard the side of the football field they are on. The WR will often go from one side to the other making the final stat line impossible to match up with a defender.

The only way you can know is to watch the games or talk to someone who watched the games. You have to know how the plays went down not just look at some stat line.
Why do you suppose I was asking?
With all the football you have watched you would think you would know that. Weird to me that you didn't.
Actually it happens frequently, and usually if a guy is scorching a defense the opposing DC will match his best CB on the receiver. And in fact some teams do so routinely. Are you telling me you've watched all 100+ NCAA Division I teams and charted their CB movement throughout each game?
When was the last time you say Champ Bailey try and chase a WR all over the field?
I've seen it several times, including when he's matched up against someone like Randy Moss. It's even been the subject of debate on here as people wondered aloud why Slowick would let Bly stay on a guy who was burning us.
What happened with Bey and Smith, I don't know, I didn't watch the game. Which is why you have to wait to see players perform in the pros instead of just going back and looking at the stats from each game.
Thanks Captain Obvious...as i recall it was your post that prompted me to look to see who he played against in the first place since you stated that he went up agaisnt the best receivers in the country and in fact he didn't face anyone of note other than this Raider rookie and the kid from Ole Miss.

Rock Chalk
05-19-2009, 05:30 PM
See? The best trolls know how to use a thesaurus.

The worst part is he used to instead of too but still managed a couple of words with more than one syllable.

Just shows that a thesaurus doesnt give you intelligence ;)

footstepsfrom#27
05-19-2009, 05:32 PM
The worst part is he used to instead of too but still managed a couple of words with more than one syllable.

Just shows that a thesaurus doesnt give you intelligence ;)
Nobody needs a thesaurus to recognize an idiot like you.

gyldenlove
05-19-2009, 06:19 PM
Your argument was that it was racism. My argument is that it's stereotyping =).

Racism is nothing but stereotyping based on race, you do realize that right?

Hulamau
05-19-2009, 11:53 PM
Actually I read quite a bit on all these guys, probably more than most people in here. Just so you know...after the draft I spent time examining everything I could find on each of these playes, much of which has never been posted on this board by anyone...and in the case of the skill positions, I also looked up NCAA statistics game-by-game for each of these guys. I also look for information in places most people don't, including college newspaper stories that typically don't appear high on ghe Google list...because you can find stuff there you can't find elsewhere. For Alphonso Smith I looked up his opponents for each game to see who he faced and how they did, which is why I was aware that the Maryland kid had a big game against Wake Forest. Knowing he probably took the top receiver, it's a natural question to ask about who was covering him, wouldn't you agree?

Despite what Kalore said, I never "hated" the Shanahan regime, and in fact spent time defending it in many cases, but it was obvious a change was needed because the game had passed Mike by and Bowlen didn't seem capable of fixing things up till this past few months. Before that change happened, I and several other people in here were calling for it, usually to a chorus of people telling us we were nuts and predicting dire consequences if such a move were made. Most of those same people are now hollering equally loudly for this guy and blasting Shanahan as if they were on board with him leaving from the start, which they weren't. Unlike a lot of people, I don't mix my emotions with how the team does, which means I'm not motivated either to praise or to criticize, but instead I look at any one situation on its merrits alone, and comment on it how I see it...nothing more.

Just as there are several draft picks I found foolish or questionable, there were several I also liked, including the Moreno pick, but also the picks of Schlueter and Olsen, plus the McKinney pick...and I think the UDFA crop look like good finds as well. I question the Quinn, Smith and to a lesser extent the McBath picks...and for that I'm considered a hater or negative about the team's fortunes. Whatever...in the off season that's what it's about anyway...questioning things, examingng things, predicting things...once the season gets here virtually everyone here including me is rooting on every move done by the coaches and the staff and hoping for the best.

That's fair enough Footsteps, you're perfectly entitled to feel and express as you wish here as well. Just as other's here are free to express some irritation when and if they feel you or anyone else may have gone over board a bit on looking for the any possible dark cloud over many of these moves too.

Most all of us know there are a lot of unknowns here and things may work out well, or may not, and we could very easily struggle this year without it at all being a referendum or proof that McD is in over his head.

We could very easily struggle this year for a whole host of reasons, not all related to how well McD is doing his job either by any means. And even if we do struggle, these moves McD has made may will turn out to be the very best one's for us for the longer term future!

Assuming we don't have a boat load of key injury bad luck this year ( and we are long over due for a break on that front!), and we don't see any progress at all and a further sliding down by seasons end, and again going into next year, then the worm may turn for McD some by the middle or end of 2010.

But in the meantime most of us here do see the many bumps in the road but choose to also focus at least equal attention, if not more, on the many positive signs.

Also Id hope that collectively the fan base in Denver is mature enough to give the guy some support, even when they aren't sure of him and have doubts, and not set up from the beginning to run him out of town the first time another team scores on us or we run into a period of adversity.. which we will!

You may not like him, don't trust him and question all of his moves. But he IS the face of the Broncos now and not just some bit player. I think you'll find a warmer reception here of you critical points and misgivings too if you also express more support for hoping you are wrong as well an the Broncos and McD succeed, as you imply above.

This is a multi-year project .. at least two ... and so yes, while you and anyone else have every right to b**** and moan McD's every step and hardly ever throw him a bone, don't be surprised when it begins to wear thin on a Broncos' board where the majority of us would rather take a glass is half-full approach until proven otherwise.

For example, there wasn't anything wrong with asking that question about Alphonso, its the way you just stated it immediately in response to a positive interview with the guy, without any comment explaining your research into the matter or that you liked the kid or whatever.

It just came across as immediately challenging both Alphonso's and the interviewer's honesty, and to rub it in it turns out your negative assumption was wrong in any event, and Smith was right! ... Its safe to assume as well that Smith isn't going to be quite so forceful and up front acknowledging that he has ZERO TD's against him when there are tapes of him getting burned by Heyward-Bey, right?

That's a logical assumption in any event Footsteps, and the fact that you chose to throw that out their without looking it up yourself, or giving Alphonso the benefit of the doubt, until you found out for sure, does tend reinforce to feeling of bias against McD and any picks you didn't like for one reason or another ... and gets to the crux of why so many here are getting on your case lately.

Its not that you don't have any good points, sometimes you do, but maybe mix in a little more of the positive side and show a bit more of this hope you say you have for being wrong about McD and all, and seeing the Broncos succeed as well. More like you did in this reply to me above. Then I suspect there will be more acceptance for your critical or challenging takes as well.

Ive noticed you have added a few more on the more positive to neutral side of the coin lately with the Olsen thing and now this article from Bleacher report which was good to see, so it seems this is all sorting itself out as it goes along.

Anyway, the bottomline is we all know there are a huge number of challenges to winning the SB this or any other year. And pointing those challenges and weaknesses out is perfectly fine along the way, but its only common sense too, on a Fan board of the team, that if those comments get too relentlessly negative or condescending you have to expect a bit of backlash and irritation too.

Nevertheless carry on as you wish, its no problem. If guys get too fed up they'll just put you on ignore.

footstepsfrom#27
05-20-2009, 12:51 AM
For example, there wasn't anything wrong with asking that question about Alphonso, its the way you just stated it immediately in response to a positive interview with the guy, without any comment explaining your research into the matter or that you liked the kid or whatever.
I also came out a few posts later and said I was impressed with his interview.
It just came across as immediately challenging both Alphonso's and the interviewer's honesty, and to rub it in it turns out your negative assumption was wrong in any event, and Smith was right! ... Its safe to assume as well that Smith isn't going to be quite so forceful and up front acknowledging that he has ZERO TD's against him when there are tapes of him getting burned by Heyward-Bey, right?

That's a logical assumption in any event Footsteps, and the fact that you chose to throw that out their without looking it up yourself, or giving Alphonso the benefit of the doubt, until you found out for sure, does tend reinforce to feeling of bias against McD and any picks you didn't like for one reason or another ... and gets to the crux of why so many here are getting on your case lately.
Actually Hulamau...I never said or even indicated I thought he was lying, nor did I assume he was wrong. I merely asked the question hoping someone could verify that DHB caught the pass on someone else. Someone in fact answered the question, which is all I was looking for. Prior to the post, I ran multiple searches for both text and video looking for something and found nothing which is why I posted the question. It's logical to assume that with 11 catches SOMEBODY was getting burned and equally logical to assume the WF coaches might have assigned their best coverage guy to the problem....hence the reason for my question.

What I find frustrating in here is that so many people commit so little energy to asking decent questions or making any attempt to be objective at all. The same logic used to defend something on our side will be scorned by a poster using it when some fan of another team does the same thing...it's just ridiculous sometimes. Everything is about the color of the jersey. Today's hero is tomorrow's jerk as soon as he's cut or traded. If I seem to aggressivly pursue the anti-establishment viewpoint to frequently, it's out of an attempt to bring some sort of balance to the discussion, something that's usually sevrely lacking.

Go back and search prior posts I made following the previous year's drafts and you'll discover I always take a skeptical viewpoint during the offseason...would you agree their won-lost record over the last 4 years I've been here has proven out that was justified? Obviously it has since we've been mediocre throughout that time. I want this team to win as badly as anyone, probably more than most because this board is loaded with people who have followed this team for a few short years and don't really know what it's like to realy wait for something. Well I waited almost 30 years to see them win a championship, so I do know what it's like to wait. When I hear some 21 year old telling me what a "real fan" does or doesn't do or what kind of opinion is acceptable...it's utterly laughable and ridiculously stupid to me.

I post what I think is accurate and what makes sense from the standpiont of looking at the entire picture. BTW...some of the same detractors I have in here who say it's my negativity they take issue with...are also the same people who have verbally waged a war over things I said that were decidely POSITIVE in nature.

Case in point...two years ago this board jumped all over Mike Bell when he got shelved by Shanny...this mind you...was a kid who TOLD OTHER NFL TEAMS NOT TO DRAFT HIM because he wanted to play for us. How often does something like that EVER happen in pro sports? I don't recall it EVER happening do you? This wasn't an Elway thing...a guy with leverage...this was a guy who stood to be undrafted or go late. He got zero credit for this once he landed on the bench.

I compared his PRODUCTION...not his talent...his production...with Marion Barber...a guy who was at that time a rotation back sharing time with Julius Jones in Dallas, was also running behind a much superior blocking line, and a guy who has now had 2 out of his 4 seasons with a ypc average below 4.0. Comparing their stats in 2006 (the previous season) showed that the criticism of Bell wasn't justified since they were at that time more or less similar in their production. In fact their stats were almost interchangeable...look it up and you'll see. Multiple people attacked this as ludicrous and one idiot still brings it up...last year we saw Barber as a starter for the first time...and 3.7 ypc is what he produced.

Similar results have followed other positions. The bottom line...I'm not here like some people to join a club. I'm not interested in who likes or doesn't like me.

Thanks for the dialogue...reasonable approach is appreciated.

RubberDuckie24
05-20-2009, 01:11 AM
"This message is hidden because footstepsfrom#27 is on your ignore list."

Oh wait, did I just prove your point, Hulamau? :sunshine:

footstepsfrom#27
05-20-2009, 01:34 AM
"This message is hidden because footstepsfrom#27 is on your ignore list."

Oh wait, did I just prove your point, Hulamau? :sunshine:
Good for you Mr. 54 posts in 2 years. A 21 year old who plays with a rubber bath toy probably needs to stick to "see Spot run" or something similar.

cutthemdown
05-20-2009, 01:38 AM
Not with the internet.
Just go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjaBWuo4zATime: 6:05
See that #10 and #17 were covering him during the TD and most of his catches were not against Alphonso Smith. The only catch I could find was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzgh6GzdVVYTime: 0:45
Alphonso got a hand on the ball and Darrius catches the ball on his back.

Well yeah internet you can find information as well. My point stands though you can't tell how a player played by reading a stat line.

I think you agree with, but you are just showing a way to find out without having had watched the game.

Footsteps problem is he thinks he can look at stats and then make a decision about a player. The only way to really know it to watch them play, alot.

People that watch way more college football then me say Smith was a great college player. That's enough for me to be excited about him.

cutthemdown
05-20-2009, 01:51 AM
you do see CB's match up against a WR and chase him around footsteps but really it doesn't happen as much as people think. Of course neither of us have stats on it but can obviously remember times when CBS have stayed on their side of field, and times where they follow a WR around to stay on him.

I would guess that you only see CBS follow a WR from one side to the other about 20% at the most, but I could be wrong.

Mostly you only see Bailey do that a few times a yr.

In college they play a lot of zone so you won't see it very often IMO. You mostly only see it when the corners are playing man to man, also sort of rare now days.

Alphonso Smith, has no doubt given up tds and catches, what cb doesn't. What makes me excited about him is how often he gets his hands on the ball. Not only that but he catches a lot of those balls, then returns them pretty well also.

I haven't got to watch him play a lot, but for someone to get that many picks in HS, that many picks in college, I think maybe just has knack for it. Some players just know how to anticipate throws and routes, some have to go totally on film and coaches instructions. The great ones are the ones that do both, but you can't coach anticipation and being instinctive. You can coach watching film and understanding what you are seeing.

I think this player may have what it takes to have both. He seems to be a bright young kid which will make him coachable. He also seems to have a knack for big plays, which isn't.

We will see but he's the draft pick I am most excited about. We need tunrovers, this players snags a few and maybe we can start turning that around.

Our secondary last yr was the worst in NFL history after Bailey went down. It needed help big time, as bad as the dline IMO.

footstepsfrom#27
05-20-2009, 01:51 AM
Footsteps problem is he thinks he can look at stats and then make a decision about a player. The only way to really know it to watch them play, alot.
See this is the problem with people on this board. Facts and logic? Who needs 'em huh? Start with the fact that I already addressed this earlier in this thread...which you obviously didn't read. Second...as I asked before...Why exactly do you think I asked this question? You do understand it was a QUESTION I ASKED SINCE I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO SAW THE GAME...RIGHT? I never said he gave up the TD...I asked if anyone knew who did. Got it? This is not rocket science OK? I looked at his game-by-game stats to find out who he played against after you made the bold and unsubstantiated statement that he played against the best receivers in college football...which was not true BTW...and that's how I came accross the Maryland game and knew enough to ask the question.
People that watch way more college football then me say Smith was a great college player. That's enough for me to be excited about him.
That's secondary source information that most people might suggest is pretty unreliable and a lot of fans would want to dig a bit further but whatever works for you is fine...this is entertainment isn't it? None-the-less...it doesn't really leave you in position to speak as if you know something does it? That's why I look for information from a variety of sources....takes a few extra minutes...but why not? Same thing with reading a few posts...had you read what was said earlier you'd know you are responding to something that was never said and arguing something already responded to.

cutthemdown
05-20-2009, 03:01 AM
See this is the problem with people on this board. Facts and logic? Who needs 'em huh? Start with the fact that I already addressed this earlier in this thread...which you obviously didn't read.

Well I can't read everything



Second...as I asked before...Why exactly do you think I asked this question? You do understand it was a QUESTION I ASKED SINCE I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO SAW THE GAME...RIGHT?

It came off like you were saying that you felt because Bey had a big day it must have been against him, I didn't know it was a question

I never said he gave up the TD...I asked if anyone knew who did. Got it? This is not rocket science OK? I looked at his game-by-game stats to find out who he played against after you made the bold and unsubstantiated statement that he played against the best receivers in college football...which was not true BTW...and that's how I came accross the Maryland game and knew enough to ask the question.

Ok yeah but I followed that up with that what I meant was he had went up against the other teams best since HS, since College and always done well. As in people keep doubting but in his are all these games were he got picks. You even said in that thread you appreciated me clarifying that. Now you bring it up again acting like you didn't understand what I had said. That's in poor taste if you ask me.

That's secondary source information that most people might suggest is pretty unreliable and a lot of fans would want to dig a bit further but whatever works for you is fine...this is entertainment isn't it? None-the-less...it doesn't really leave you in position to speak as if you know something does it? That's why I look for information from a variety of sources....takes a few extra minutes...but why not? Same thing with reading a few posts...had you read what was said earlier you'd know you are responding to something that was never said and arguing something already responded to.


Like I said before I'm done digging, it's time to just sit back and be a fan again. I'm sick of over analyzing the team like I know what picks will play good based on looking at some college performances. I have heard enough good things about these players to be excited. I will judge his play, and the other rookies by how they play for Broncos. For that we have to wait, you can dig and take your few extra minutes, but we have read and heard all we can about these draft picks. All that's left now is to watch them play.

cutthemdown
05-20-2009, 03:06 AM
As far as the guys I talk to about sports they are diehard gamblers, and they do well at it. They watch all friggin day on SAT, games I would never watch. They know the players in the draft where I have to grab information of web, from you fools, from other sources.

How many of you could make a realistic draft board by yourselves without reading a bunch of mock drafts etc? Not me so I ask people that have watched more.

Now when it comes to pros I watch a lot so I know a lot more about those players already playing in NFL.

So footsteps what information do you have about any Bronco draft pick that is not secondary? You almost have to have game tape, the network broadcast doesn't cut it because you only get to watch what they show.

To get first hand info you almost have to have scouts gametape which is the whole field at once from really high up, or be at the game in a spot you can see the whole field every play.

Ray Finkle
05-20-2009, 03:57 AM
Bull. Its definitely a black/white thing. I never hear people surprised when white athletes are well spoken. its always a compliment given to black athletes. Yes, its stereotyping, but its a stereotype of a BLACK ATHLETE. Racism.

complete and utter crap....The term well spoken is not a knock on someones race. I am described as well spoken and I am white.....

the term means that you have a strong understanding of the English language and grammar. My brother in law (who is black) and I have this discussion all the time. It is not racist to say a young black man is well spoken, it is a compliment.

Tom Brady and Lebron James = well spoken men

Allen Iverson and Jeremy Shockey = not well spoken men...

footstepsfrom#27
05-20-2009, 08:07 AM
So footsteps what information do you have about any Bronco draft pick that is not secondary? You almost have to have game tape, the network broadcast doesn't cut it because you only get to watch what they show.

To get first hand info you almost have to have scouts gametape which is the whole field at once from really high up, or be at the game in a spot you can see the whole field every play.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. By "secondary" I meant simply relying on what someone says, not something you dug up on your own to cross check what they said or verify it. Sure...it's all secondary...except that when you only take what someone says at face value, which BTW is frequently what it looks like a lot of people here do...you're obviously only repeating something you haven't checked yourself. Hence, if anything is inaccurate how would one know? Yes it's all secondary...all except what the scouts themselves actually see...the guys that actually get paid to watch these guys. From that standpoint, even the scouts report is second hand because what is seen might not be accurately repeated in print, might leave gaps or be limited in how its ability to express data fully.

If you want to get right down to it however...NFL coaches are ALSO relying on secondary reports...unless they are actually traveling around with scouts and watching these guys, or watching every game film the scout does...which they're not. How much actual game film do you think Shanahan took time to see?...or McD either for that matter. If the scouts watch 1000 players and report on them, the coaching staff is relying for the most part on what these guys tell them if for no other reason than the fact that they don't have the time to do more. I understand they dial it farther than that on someone they're targeting, but overall...in terms of the entire group of athletes...even the scouts themselves can only watch certain players. The guy assigned to scout the Big 10...what's he know about the SEC or the ACC? Only what he's told or reads in other reports, same as the coaches. The coaches rely on what the scouts say, but obviously at some point they're trying to verify things by working the guy out, personal interviews, the combine, etc...in other words going beyond by cross checking things. I think that processs is the same one a fan can realistically do...not in terms of the same access to information, but at least in terms of the same process...meaning they're trying to verify what they think by checking it against other reports.

That's where this place has some value. I like to read fan reports from training camp since it's first hand observation. I like to hear what people found who did some research. I don't really care for hearing that so-and-so said this so it's true, because that falls into the same category as what's heard on the light rail...in other words it can't be verified, so I put it in a different category. I imagine you do also...maybe not from what you hear from these gamblers but I bet you do that when someon else presents something like that. From another standpoint...the average fan has almost the same access most reporters do...certainly the focus is narrower and more focused than what one gets from national writers covering the whole league so if (and only if) objectivity is held rather than subjectivity tilted towards a homeristic view...I think we can get some pretty accurate reports from each other. Unfortunately...that doesnt' usually happen but it can. That's why I don't automatically assume that these "fools" don't know anything. If you watch the game for years and understand it well, do research, check facts, bring a good effort to the forum...I don't see people doing that as fools, and in fact I would bet we have numbers of people here who would be fully capable of scouting for NFL teams if they pursued that. I could do so myself since I well understand the game, but why waste that opportunity to bring accuracy to the table by tainting it with a lack of objectivity or a refusal to acknowlege information we don't like? That's what bugs me about much of what's represented...it utilizes logic we would never accept from anyone arguing on behalf of another team, so why accept it on our own team?

ElwayMD
05-20-2009, 08:22 AM
Racism is nothing but stereotyping based on race, you do realize that right?

Stereotyping and racism do not go hand in hand. If you saw the clothes laid out for someone and they were baggy jeans, a scarface shirt, black baseball cap, sneakers and bling would you assume that they are the clothes of a white middle class teenager or are they [I]stereotypically[I]the clothes of a young black male? Is that racist or just an observation of trends within ethnic groups.

Racism is when you interject your bias or hatred into the equation if you added a modifier like "smelly, cheap, dumb, etc." that would turn the stereotyping into the realm of racism. Of course most race baiters hope that people don't know the difference. They wouldn't be stereotypes if they didn't actually occur.

gyldenlove
05-20-2009, 08:36 AM
Stereotyping and racism do not go hand in hand. If you saw the clothes laid out for someone and they were baggy jeans, a scarface shirt, black baseball cap, sneakers and bling would you assume that they are the clothes of a white middle class teenager or are they [I]stereotypically[I]the clothes of a young black male? Is that racist or just an observation of trends within ethnic groups.

Racism is when you interject your bias or hatred into the equation if you added a modifier like "smelly, cheap, dumb, etc." that would turn the stereotyping into the realm of racism. Of course most race baiters hope that people don't know the difference. They wouldn't be stereotypes if they didn't actually occur.

No, I know it is a common misconception but Racism isn't exclusively negative stereotypes.

If I see a white guy and a black guy lined up to run a 100m sprint, it would be racist if I assume the black guy will win simply because he is black. I would be projecting the stereotype that black people are more athletic than white people, which is racist even though it is not negative.

mr007
05-20-2009, 08:54 AM
No, I know it is a common misconception but Racism isn't exclusively negative stereotypes.

If I see a white guy and a black guy lined up to run a 100m sprint, it would be racist if I assume the black guy will win simply because he is black. I would be projecting the stereotype that black people are more athletic than white people, which is racist even though it is not negative.

People have different definitions of racism. I do not believe you believing a black dude will beat a white guy in a 100m sprint is racism. To me, racism includes the hatred of one person by another, or believing you are superior to another simply based on their skin color.

When I believe a black dude is gonna beat a white dude in a sprint, it has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with stereotyping - the belief of an outcome to be a certain way based on what I've witnessed and experienced in life. It has to do with probability and in my opinion, that isn't racism.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-20-2009, 09:01 AM
Stereotyping does not always include racism, but racism usually includes stereotype. In the example we've been arguing about (the speech), its RACIST to assume (consciously or unconsciously) that black athletes are dumb (or poor speakers). Sure, the stereotype may come from a few people, but broadening that stereotype to encompass an entire group of ethnic people in inherently racist. So even if you think you're complimenting them on "good speech", many times you're pointing it out as if its some exception to the rule.

ElwayMD
05-20-2009, 09:09 AM
No, I know it is a common misconception but Racism isn't exclusively negative stereotypes.

If I see a white guy and a black guy lined up to run a 100m sprint, it would be racist if I assume the black guy will win simply because he is black. I would be projecting the stereotype that black people are more athletic than white people, which is racist even though it is not negative.

Your example is not racist. It is taking the assumed norms of society (blacks being better sprinters than whites) and making your decision based on those norms. Why are we so ga ga over Peyton Hillis? Because he breaks the stereotype that whites can't be sucessful running backs. Is it racist that we assume he can't run? No, it's just based on the fact that 99.9% of running backs that are successful in the NFL are black.

It would be racist to say that a black man can't be a good quarterback because he is mentally inferior to a white man. That's a racist statement. The assumption that a black man is a more gifted athlete than a white man is not racist because it's been shown time and time again that blacks have more natural athletic ability than whites.

gyldenlove
05-20-2009, 09:13 AM
People have different definitions of racism. I do not believe you believing a black dude will beat a white guy in a 100m sprint is racism. To me, racism includes the hatred of one person by another, or believing you are superior to another simply based on their skin color.

When I believe a black dude is gonna beat a white dude in a sprint, it has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with stereotyping - the belief of an outcome to be a certain way based on what I've witnessed and experienced in life. It has to do with probability and in my opinion, that isn't racism.

When you assume a black man is faster in a sprint than a white man simply based on color, you are also assuming that the white man is slower than the black man.

It is of course a logical trap, in believing someone is superior you also believe others are inferior. So by stereotyping a black man as more athletic you also stereotype a white man as less athletic which is of course racist, you assume a white man is inferior to a black man simply because of race.

Two guys walk down the street, one is a cop in street clothes, the other is a convicted fellon, one is white, one is black - based on your probability argument I should always assume that the black guy is the criminal since black men are more likely than white men to commit a crime (which is a fact). That sounds racist to me, even though probability agrees with me.

gyldenlove
05-20-2009, 09:22 AM
Your example is not racist. It is taking the assumed norms of society (blacks being better sprinters than whites) and making your decision based on those norms. Why are we so ga ga over Peyton Hillis? Because he breaks the stereotype that whites can't be sucessful running backs. Is it racist that we assume he can't run? No, it's just based on the fact that 99.9% of running backs that are successful in the NFL are black.

It would be racist to say that a black man can't be a good quarterback because he is mentally inferior to a white man. That's a racist statement. The assumption that a black man is a more gifted athlete than a white man is not racist because it's been shown time and time again that blacks have more natural athletic ability than whites.

It has also been proven time and again that white people make better lawyers, CEOs, doctors, chess players, mathmaticians, physicists, scientists and generals, so white people must have better natural mental abilities.

You are confusing the fact that a miniscule fraction of black people make good athletes with an overall trade. That Stephen Hawking is white doesn't make white people smarter than black people the same way Lebron James being black doesn't make black people better athletes than white people.

Assumed norms of society are often racist. It was for a long time an assumed norm of society that black people were not even humans, so in your argument making a decision based on that is not racist. It strikes me as a very conformist and dangerous way of thinking.

RubberDuckie24
05-20-2009, 09:49 AM
It has also been proven time and again that white people make better lawyers, CEOs, doctors, chess players, mathmaticians, physicists, scientists and generals, so white people must have better natural mental abilities.

You are confusing the fact that a miniscule fraction of black people make good athletes with an overall trade. That Stephen Hawking is white doesn't make white people smarter than black people the same way Lebron James being black doesn't make black people better athletes than white people.

Assumed norms of society are often racist. It was for a long time an assumed norm of society that black people were not even humans, so in your argument making a decision based on that is not racist. It strikes me as a very conformist and dangerous way of thinking.

Certainly, blacks have the potential to be better athletes than whites do. That's hard to argue against when 0 white men have run lower than a 10 second 100m dash, whereas 30 black men have.

And trust me, that's not because there aren't enough white people trying to run track.

gyldenlove
05-20-2009, 10:07 AM
Certainly, blacks have the potential to be better athletes than whites do. That's hard to argue against when 0 white men have run lower than a 10 second 100m dash, whereas 30 black men have.

And trust me, that's not because there aren't enough white people trying to run track.

Sure, I would never argue against potential - but there is a big difference between saying "A black man can potentially be faster than a white man" and "A black man is faster than a white man".

footstepsfrom#27
05-20-2009, 10:15 AM
It has also been proven time and again that white people make better lawyers, CEOs, doctors, chess players, mathmaticians, physicists, scientists and generals, so white people must have better natural mental abilities.
I prefer not to engage beyond this point on this since my positions on race are well known here and generally degenerate into an endless argument that goes nowhere and mystifies most people, but I will comment on this one statement. I get your overall point but I take issue with this particular assertion. What's been proven is not that whites make better lawyers, CEO's, etc...but that blacks have been historically and consistently to this day marginalized in terms of the opportunity presented to them due to the horrific state of urban schools in this country, coupled with the twin factors dominating and devestating the population...poverty and crime...both of which radically impact outcomes for career choices. These factors differ from the ones represented by a discussion on athletics since one is essentially a product of environmental conditioning (education) and related to opportunity and the other physical and (at least in the small fractional sample you reference), essentially or substantially genetic.
Assumed norms of society are often racist. It was for a long time an assumed norm of society that black people were not even humans, so in your argument making a decision based on that is not racist. It strikes me as a very conformist and dangerous way of thinking.
Racism at the end of the day is about how we feel about someone, an attitude represented by hatred or dislike. While subtle stereotypes might pervade many/most people's thinking, I still think the leap from that into real racism is one taken when we hate someone or reject them based on race. I have a blended family with my wife and her three daughters black and myself and my two girls white, which makes for an interesting dynamic in public. We face and in fact discuss this stuff reguarly, and differ to some extent even accross the dining room table with how we see these issues or define them, but where we agree is that attitude is the critical point of intersection where what one believes and how actions follow those beliefs combine to produce racist or non-racist motives.

RubberDuckie24
05-20-2009, 10:24 AM
Sure, I would never argue against potential - but there is a big difference between saying "A black man can potentially be faster than a white man" and "A black man is faster than a white man".

What I was trying to get at is that in general, top black athletes are more athletic than top white athletes. That may sound racist, but it's not given the statistics. There's a reason 70% of nfl players are black, given only that only 13% of the american population is black.

So then why does the statement that whites make better CEO's, lawyers, physicists, etc invalid? Because 70% of Americans are white (compared to 13% for blacks), but not only that, they are much more inclined to be "more intellectual" so to speak because of their upbringing, the culture that supports it, and the fact that on average whites are brought up in more wealthy families than blacks are (thus giving them more opportunities, better education, etc).

And if you want to look at the exception, all you have to do is look at our president. There are no exceptions for white men running below 10 second 100m dash's.

gyldenlove
05-20-2009, 10:47 AM
What I was trying to get at is that in general, top black athletes are more athletic than top white athletes. That may sound racist, but it's not given the statistics. There's a reason 70% of nfl players are black, given only that only 13% of the american population is black.

So then why does the statement that whites make better CEO's, lawyers, physicists, etc invalid? Because 70% of Americans are white (compared to 13% for blacks), but not only that, they are much more inclined to be "more intellectual" so to speak because of their upbringing, the culture that supports it, and the fact that on average whites are brought up in more wealthy families than blacks are (thus giving them more opportunities, better education, etc).

And if you want to look at the exception, all you have to do is look at our president. There are no exceptions for white men running below 10 second 100m dash's.

How come there are no significant black pro cyclists? relatively few black baseball players, hockey players, swimmers, gymnasts.

The reason that 70% of the NFL are black and that a high % of the NBA are black is because there are so few sports that black people reach the pro level at. If black people in general were more athletic, wouldn't expect Phelbs to be black? how about Lance Armstrong? How about Sydney Crosby? If you take all pro sports in the states and compare how many black people there are compared to white people, it is going to match quite well with how many black people and white people there are in the general population. Black athletes just tend to end up in a few sports so they make up a higher % in those sports.

So you are saying that upbringing, culture and family are the reason why there are so few black people who are doctors, lawyers and CEOs, while you say it is purely natural that black people are faster than white people. Couldn't it be that because black people tend to grow up with a more physical upbringing, more restricted access to computers and books and more access to physical activities such as basketball and baseball, that because there is a higher % of poverty among black people that they may be more desparate and be willing to practice harder on the track or take steroids to help them achieve a pro career.

RubberDuckie24
05-20-2009, 11:05 AM
How come there are no significant black pro cyclists? relatively few black baseball players, hockey players, swimmers, gymnasts.

The reason that 70% of the NFL are black and that a high % of the NBA are black is because there are so few sports that black people reach the pro level at. If black people in general were more athletic, wouldn't expect Phelbs to be black? how about Lance Armstrong? How about Sydney Crosby? If you take all pro sports in the states and compare how many black people there are compared to white people, it is going to match quite well with how many black people and white people there are in the general population. Black athletes just tend to end up in a few sports so they make up a higher % in those sports.

So you are saying that upbringing, culture and family are the reason why there are so few black people who are doctors, lawyers and CEOs, while you say it is purely natural that black people are faster than white people. Couldn't it be that because black people tend to grow up with a more physical upbringing, more restricted access to computers and books and more access to physical activities such as basketball and baseball, that because there is a higher % of poverty among black people that they may be more desparate and be willing to practice harder on the track or take steroids to help them achieve a pro career.

"How come there are no significant black pro cyclists? relatively few black baseball players, hockey players, swimmers, gymnasts."

That's easy, because it's not part of the black culture to get into those sports. Same with soccer (at least in the United States). Within the black culture, if you have talent and the physical ability, you're going to play football (generally).

You're right in that black athletes tend to gravitate towards a select number of sports, but nothing to compensate for the 70% - 13% swing in white-black ratio of the american population. You're going out on a real big stretch.

"Couldn't it be that because black people tend to grow up with a more physical upbringing, more restricted access to computers and books and more access to physical activities such as basketball and baseball, that because there is a higher % of poverty among black people that they may be more desparate and be willing to practice harder on the track or take steroids to help them achieve a pro career."

To answer that question, Hell no.

So basically your saying that there are actually more black kids than white kids playing sports because they "have to." Hell no. Even if EVERY black kid is playing to become a pro football player, and only 50% of white kids are playing to become a pro football player, it still doesn't even come close to compensating for the difference in the population of their races in the United States.

The statistics prove that blacks are better athletes than whites in general. They are naturally more athletically gifted than whites are, why is that so hard to understand and accept?

gyldenlove
05-20-2009, 11:38 AM
"How come there are no significant black pro cyclists? relatively few black baseball players, hockey players, swimmers, gymnasts."

That's easy, because it's not part of the black culture to get into those sports. Same with soccer (at least in the United States). Within the black culture, if you have talent and the physical ability, you're going to play football (generally).

You're right in that black athletes tend to gravitate towards a select number of sports, but nothing to compensate for the 70% - 13% swing in white-black ratio of the american population. You're going out on a real big stretch.

"Couldn't it be that because black people tend to grow up with a more physical upbringing, more restricted access to computers and books and more access to physical activities such as basketball and baseball, that because there is a higher % of poverty among black people that they may be more desparate and be willing to practice harder on the track or take steroids to help them achieve a pro career."

To answer that question, Hell no.

So basically your saying that there are actually more black kids than white kids playing sports because they "have to." Hell no. Even if EVERY black kid is playing to become a pro football player, and only 50% of white kids are playing to become a pro football player, it still doesn't even come close to compensating for the difference in the population of their races in the United States.

The statistics prove that blacks are better athletes than whites in general. They are naturally more athletically gifted than whites are, why is that so hard to understand and accept?

No, there is no stat that shows that blacks are better athletes. You can give a few isolated examples, but nothing that is significant. I would like to see you try though.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-20-2009, 11:42 AM
complete and utter crap....The term well spoken is not a knock on someones race. I am described as well spoken and I am white.....

the term means that you have a strong understanding of the English language and grammar. My brother in law (who is black) and I have this discussion all the time. It is not racist to say a young black man is well spoken, it is a compliment.

Tom Brady and Lebron James = well spoken men

Allen Iverson and Jeremy Shockey = not well spoken men...

You don't often dig deeper than the surface, do you?

cutthemdown
05-20-2009, 11:53 AM
You don't often dig deeper than the surface, do you?

Meh he's friggin white, i mean right. Listen it's all how you say something. We all know what you say, and how you say it, mean all the difference.

You can tell if someone is sincere when they say wow that kid is really smart........for a black kid. Or Hey that is one smart kid there, he's special..Etc.

Non verbal signals almost as important as the verbal ones, sometimes more.

There is nothing racists in saying a kid is well spoken.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-20-2009, 12:52 PM
Meh he's friggin white, i mean right. Listen it's all how you say something. We all know what you say, and how you say it, mean all the difference.

You can tell if someone is sincere when they say wow that kid is really smart........for a black kid. Or Hey that is one smart kid there, he's special..Etc.

Non verbal signals almost as important as the verbal ones, sometimes more.

There is nothing racists in saying a kid is well spoken.

Again, you have to dig deeper beneath the surface to find how racism still permeates culture. Think about that GQ poll that claimed black people hate when white people call them "well spoken." I dont think the white person saying it has ill will upfront, BUT there's a subconscious surprise that said black person doesn't sound like an idiot. Its why pretty much everytime you see a black athlete that doesnt sound like a moron speak, white people jump with the "well spoken" compliment. Or like when people used to fawn over Dominique Foxworth's speaking ability. Honestly, he sounded like a nice, smart young man...but nothing amazingly spectacular. his linguistic skills where nothing all that special. This is all inherent racism whether you choose to believe it or not.

Ray Finkle
05-20-2009, 02:09 PM
You don't often dig deeper than the surface, do you?

small example....Most professional people (regardless of color) are well spoken.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-20-2009, 02:55 PM
small example....Most professional people (regardless of color) are well spoken.

i agree. which is why its funny that black athletes are constantly told they are well spoken when they can put sentences together

cmhargrove
05-20-2009, 03:45 PM
?

2KBack
05-20-2009, 03:59 PM
i agree. which is why its funny that black athletes are constantly told they are well spoken when they can put sentences together

Sounds to me that it is less about what race you are and more about your profession. Athletes have a poor reputation in the communication department.

RubberDuckie24
05-20-2009, 04:00 PM
No, there is no stat that shows that blacks are better athletes. You can give a few isolated examples, but nothing that is significant. I would like to see you try though.

:kiddingme


Lol, ok, you're right... whites and blacks are COMPLETELY even when it comes to being athletes.

Feel better now?

:thumbs:

Ray Finkle
05-20-2009, 04:08 PM
i agree. which is why its funny that black athletes are constantly told they are well spoken when they can put sentences together

the same thing is said for white athletes as well. It just is brought up do to guilt when someone says it about a black athlete.

Cito Pelon
05-21-2009, 11:11 AM
[QUOTE=RubberDuckie24;2421530. . . . . . .The statistics prove that blacks are better athletes than whites in general. They are naturally more athletically gifted than whites are, why is that so hard to understand and accept?[/QUOTE]

Please. Don't confuse speed with athletic ability.

azbroncfan
05-21-2009, 11:24 AM
I expect A. Smith to have 4-5 picks in a nickle role and possibly challenging for the #2 CB by end of the year.