So you should draft the inferior prospect just to appease the fans (which you're not because you're not drafting the best prospect) and not ruffle Manning's feathers? What kind of garbage argument is that?
Well, (a) she's not saying RG3 is the inferior prospect - she's saying they are simply different - and (b) if it lets you keep Manning and end up with more total talent on your team, I would think the answer is maybe. Her argument is that your option is not Luck or RG3. It's Luck or RG3 + 2 or 3 years of Peyton Manning. If healthy, Manning is arguably the best QB in history, and probably would be phenomenal for RG3 to learn from, making him a better QB in the long run as well. I disagree with the idea that Luck & Manning can't co-exist. But if you start with that viewpoint, the argument is not unreasonable.
The whole premise is that you're going to try to contend with Peyton instead if you don't draft Luck. If that's the premise (which I disagree with, 2 to 3 years of "contention" is not worth losing out on Luck), why would you then draft the second best QB in the draft if QB is literally the only position on your entire roster you are set on? If you really want to contend with Peyton, why would you not try to help him with better plays in other positions and build depth, whether that be trading down for some veteran pro-bowl type players (they should be able to get a king's ransom for Luck this year), or for multiple high draft picks?
Because there are far more running black QBs than white, especially in the past 10 years. The only running white QBs I can think off the top of my head (current players) are Tim Tebow and Aaron Rodgers. I haven't watched a ton of RG3 outside of highlights, but I didn't see a great passer. His stats suggest that he is however. Of course Tim Tebow was a good passer in college statistically.
Because your roster is aging and you also need to start looking at the future. Well, if you read the article, she addressed that and agrees with you: Of course, this is assuming that the Colts keep the pick. If another team offers the Colts multiple high draft picks for the No. 1, the Colts have to take the deal in order to maximize the remainder of Peyton Manning's Hall of Fame career. But if a sweetheart deal doesn't materialize, drafting Griffin makes more sense for the Colts than selecting Luck. Instead, all you saw was her saying to pick RG3 and therefore she must be race-baiting.
So she contradicts herself in the article. Typical. She says: That's two contradicting ideas in the same sentence. How is drafting RG3 "the best opportunity to win now"? She loses all her credibility by this statement in the beginning: Really? Couldn't be more obvious? Okay, Jemele Hill. Then she says this gem: First of all, who the hell thinks an athletic quarterback is a liability? Have you heard anyone say "Oh man, that guy sure can throw. Too bad he's such an athlete, he can never play quarterback". It's not that far-fetched to say what she really means is "black quarterback", given her track record.
Theres far more black running QB's because thats how these high school and college coaches want to use them as.. They put them in to run options and gimmicky offenses... They dont help their passing development in college.. And comparing RGIII's passing ability to Tebow is utterly ridiculous in every way..
I hate Jemele Hill too, but this article wasn't that outlandish. - Drafting RG3 may be the best opportunity to "win now" because the Colts get to keep Peyton. Yes, no one knows how he'll return from his injury, but they get to prepare for life without Peyton (the future) while retaining Peyton for at least 1 year. - Hyperbole is an instrument used by everyone. Jemele Hill is a terrible writer; we all know that. However, the use of hyperbole is just a writer's tool. - That last argument you made might be the strongest. Yes, the basis of her argument is "athletic QB" which you can read "black QB" into. Still, I didn't think she made a terrible argument. Given her track record, I see why you read "black QB" and "race relations" into things. However, I don't think this was an egregious example of race baiting. I agree Jemele Hill is a terrible writer. She comes off like the troll of trolls at times; at others, she just comes off as a mini-troll. I just don't think this article was the best example of her race agenda, and it brings up an interesting debate, one that I think will continue on until the draft. As for my personal opinion, given the rookie salaries being locked in, the #1 pick might be more valuable than ever. If someone is willing to give up a king's ransom to get the #1 (which may be possible), then I think you have to move the pick. The Colts have a lot more issues than one QB of the future will fix. However, if it comes down to RG3 v Luck, I think Luck is the better pick, RG3 the better prospect. Luck really is one of the only prospects I can remember where there is no downside. He won't "bust." At worst he'll be a steady starter. There's something to be said for that. But RG3 is more of an upside, homerun pick. It'll be interesting to see what the Texans will have to face for the next decade...
While I agree with the rest of your post, this part right here is just you not reading the whole article and applying the context. She's saying RG3 is the best opportunity to win now and in the future because he won't be ready to play right away and the crowd won't be clamoring for him. One of her main points is that if the Colts draft Luck they might lose Manning because of the way the city wants Luck to play and that Manning doesn't want to be on the same team with a NFL ready guy like Luck at his heels. Therefore, drafting a QB that will be good in the future but allows you to keep Manning is your best opportunity to win now as she explains it.
My argument is that then why do you draft a QB at all? Why not draft a DE, RB, WR, or any of their glaring weaknesses besides QB? That would be the ultimate building for the future/win now move. I understand that the QB is the most important position but if you're going to keep Manning for few more years and really want to push for another championship, you don't waste the top overall pick on a QB who won't play for a few years.
But they use white QBs in the same way that are physically capable of running like that. For whatever reason, the best athletes in the world are usually black. I'm not trying to compare RG3 and Tebow, other than to say stats can be misleading. I realize RG3 has put up great passing numbers, but when I watch his throws, I'm not convinced that he can do it at the pro level. It doesn't mean he can or can't, but I thought higher of Cam Newton's passing coming out than I do RG3. I wasn't sold on Rodgers, and he is the best QB in the league.
Now that the salaries are slotted, trading up will be more costly than ever. The Rams and Vikings better make out like bandits.
Because the goal is to both win now and in the future. And there's no other player in this draft that's really projected to be able to help in future nearly as much as the QB. Luck has been considered far and away the best prospect on the planet for the last two years. Now, RG3 has entered that discussion with him, rightly or wrongly. No other player has, so you'd be getting a noticably inferior player at the same price if you drafted simply a position of need. She already said trade down if the possibility presents itself. But if it doesn't, then RG3 adds more value than Luck because it gives you 2 or 3 years of Peyton Manning. That's all she's arguing. In your quest to undercover hidden race-baiting, you've made her argument far more than that and the criticize it for not living up to what you've made her into saying.
I had no idea being a sports writer was so easy: make statement, give no arguement for statement, and then continue talking about unrelated issues. I have it all wrong, I should have partied everyday in college, forgotten to care about grades and become an ESPN sports writer.
great another "i hate jemele hill" post/thread. in the cam newton thread i challenged a poster to list these so called "so many race baiting topics". i remember an article on lebron. Jemele's analysis on First Take is better than most of the male (white or black) analysts
I guess. RGIII is smaller and faster. Has a bigger arm. Certainly better than McNabb, or MOON? WTF Moon?
I don't remember her race baiting, but I have seen her take some terrible takes. She said the 22 winning game Rockets were "built for the regular season". WTF does that mean exactly?
