ESPN's NFL Countdown crew buries Limbaugh

You get so much props for catching that!

 

If the argument is between his statements being "race baiting" / not "race baiting", how can you say he didn't deserve a chance to prove himself because it was "race baiting" - that's what's being debated, right?.

Coverage of those events weren't nearly as hgihgligthed by the media. Sammy's race related comments were barely touched upon - I know I didn't hear about it over and over again.

You might have a point if there was proof that there never was a praa practice in organized football where Jewish athletes were denied the opportunity to play quarterback as black athletes were denied. My argument is that you just don't know, as you don't know whether or not Limbaugh was being racist by nature or just being offensive.

Do you disagree with the fact that black quarterbacks are percieved differently in today's NFL? If so, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. In my opinion, it is blatantly obvious that there is a disparity between how black and white quarterbacks are perceived. In my opinion, perception can lead to overhypeness of both black and white quarterbacks. No, I don't think Peyton Manning is the next Joe Montana jsut because he is a good smart white quarterback - often the media will overlook his completel failure in the playoffs to this point in the career. Similarly, the media has rarely (I guess never before) questioned McNabb's offensive abilities in terms of carrying his team, when, in all reality, the defense has played an enormous and largely overlooked role in the Eagles successes teh past seasons (having lived in Philly for some of those years I can tell you that the offense was painfully anemic to watch at times). Do I discount any of McNabb's hard work, skills, abilities, contributions to the team, etc? No. But I do try and take them at face value. He is a freakishly good athlete and quarterback, one of the best in the league, but I certainly feel at times the media's tendency to group a lot of black quarterbacks together as athletes as opposed to quarterbacks has meant that not as much attention has been paid to McNabb average passing abilities (passing yards and statistics aside, he makes plays with his feet, is an average thrower....IMO, which is the key here - but I guess that makes me a racist).

So now you're discounting Carr's year? Racist

I feel they are marketed differently. Because I feel this way, you think I'm a racist, apparently. I feel that Warren Moon was more often compared with Randall Cunningham than Dan Marino. I feel that Doug Williams has been appointed a special spot in history due to his status as a black quarterback. I feel that race plays a role. That's the gist of it. We know it certainly plays a role in hiring policies. I think it plays a role in more aspects. You can disagree. It shouldn't make either of us a racist.

I agree with some of his points, not all. I feel he is a moron for a combination of factors. On this instance in particular, regardless of his opinion, I feel he could have handled the situation in a much less moronic manner.

 

Pretty much, that's how it looks to me. I feel Rush's comments were moronic but not racist and, thus, not morally wrong.

I feel that some of the boards comments are moronic and "demonizing", hence morally wrong. I don't like that. I don't like it when people judge blindly. I understand Rush's history - that's not what were arguing here - not whether or not Rush is a racists, but whether or not certain statements specifically were.

 

I'd be very interested to see how I did this. I've simply argued that Rush's assertion that the media hypes up McNabb because he's black is ludicrous. I've never claimed it to be racist.

 

People deamonize Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shelia Jackson Lee, and other black leaders on this board all the time, now I'm supposed to feel sorry for Rush. You guys show your true colors everyday.

 

Yeah. What's the problem here?

 

If you're referning to me (i.e. true colors comment), I try not to venture into this forum ever. I don't like debate because inevitably it all boils down to opinion, almost negating to point of debating in the first place.

That siad, I participate on this board 90% because its sports related. This thread is sports related, I participated.

If you were talking to me, though, I don't appreciate people making assumptions about me based on one thread. Jsut because I don't preach "anti-demonizing" elsewhere doesn't mean I'm showing any "colors", true or not. It just means that I haven't participated in those threads.

 

McNabb has never really sucked until this season. As the only weapon on his team (meaning he had no top running back and no top receiver), the man constituted his teams primary running threat (14 rushing TDs and 1571 rushing yards the last 3 years) and his teams primary passing threat (63 passing touch downs the last three years). Average passing abilities or not, the man was getting results. No matter how good that defense was, somebody had to make sure the offense was being productive. That somebody wasn't the Eagles all pro receiver, cause they don't have one. Or their all pro running back, cause they don't have one. That guy was McNabb.

This is the first season in which McNabb has looked vulnerable to criticism. Now that he his struggling, the media is turning on him. Or rather, they were until Rush opened his big mouth. In one ESPN article, as scout said McNabb was no better than a 3rd round pick. Each week, until Rush's brain fart, writers were jumping off the McNabb bandwagon, like they did with Jake "The Snake" Plummer.

Which black quarterbacks get treated differently from their white counterparts? Akili Smith? Kordell Stewart? Charlie Batch? Andre Ware? Shaun King?

From 1984 to now, we've gone from questioning the intelligence of a black guy to play QB, to slighting the white man so the black man can succeed. It can't possibly be because McNabb is an incredible athlete (in the "new age," mobile mold) with a glowing personality playing the most glamorous position on the field. Quarterbacks tend to get the glory when winning and the blame when losing. That is a real fact of NFL football.

The market just loves the excitement of scrambling QBs. Whether that QB is Elway, Young, Plummer, Culpepper, Harrington, McNabb, Vick, Gannon or McNair a QB with a strong arm, who is perceived to be a runner is a marketing dream. Especially Vick--a QB with a cannon, wideout speed and half-back ability. We have finally developed into a society in an athlete can garner fame no matter his color and guys like Limbaugh can't deal with it.

 

Right on JeffB.

There is a fundamental difference here: I don't get how so many of you cling to the idea that the 'Black QB' is a rare and so specially treated event anymore. I watch a ton of sports shows, games every Sunday, read sports websites and sports pages...and I don't see it. I haven't even seen a report on McNabb prior to this emphasizing the 'black QB' in a long time. Maybe there is one, but I sure haven't seen it.

It's not new. It's hardly special. Stewart, Smith, Batch, Lucas, etc. must be wondering where their special Media Hype pass is. Hell, even McNair must be wondering why it took so long for him to get his MVP Media Hype pass.

And I seem to remember a QB named Warren Moon leading a team. That seems like a long time ago.

The world, and the league, is beyond this point. Those of you that still percieve such a great disparity among QBs should ask yourself why.

And wow...I actually agree with Deion.

 

The problem is that most people don't find Rush's statements "tame and truthful." Most people find his statements divisive and false. Rush is constantly pushing his politics of white, conservative victimization. He preys on people's fears and anger.

 

In a Rush to make a big impact
By Ralph Wiley
Page 2 columnist

How did we come to yet another "Yikes!" moment in NFL broadcast history? Who's guilty of what here in the Strange Case of Rush Limbaugh? The usual suspects are there: pride, ego, greed, power, hubris. But where does this episode stack up between Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder's lame and obtuse history lesson and Howard Cosell's "That little monkey!" naivete.

There was Rush Limbaugh, and then there he wasn't, resigning, quitting on his stool, so to speak. I wasn't glad about it. I wanted more. I wanted to hear Rush talk more football, just so I could laugh, and say, "What's my name?" while piling up the points in front of my friends and colleagues. I didn't want Rush to quit. I wanted him to stand in there and be forced to take it for the full 12 rounds. See how bad it would get -- like when your friend keeps double-or-nothing raising against your pat straight flush.

It had seemed such an inspired move, hiring Rush in the first place, in the pure-numbers universe. Hard to move your number northward in today's cable universe -- hey, let's bring Rush Limbaugh to ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown" team, along with Michael Irvin. Some matchup, huh? If that don't fetch 'em, I don't know Arkansaw! Or Florida. Or talk radio.

Along with the mainstays Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, and Steve Young, Rush would ride 'em, rope 'em, and brand 'em. And after three weeks, the ratings did bump up 10 percent to a whopping 2.2 percent of the universe of 87.6 million households. Rush's last show drew a 2.4 -- not killer, but improved. But improved wasn't enough for Rushamon. He was going to take a big bite out of this apple. What you saw was ego beginning to run toward amok, not just on Rush's part either; yeah, ego is part of it, part of it everywhere and with everybody with few exceptions in this business, in my experience. Success, pure-numbers-wise, breeds ego. I'm just trying to explain it to you without prejudice. I'm not here to pile on Rush. No need. No room, anyway. I'm here to examine what he said, and in doing so examine the reaction to it.




***** ***** *****



It's a tricky thing, the peculiar anthropology known as professional sports expertise and knowledge. Espousing it is like any profession. Sure anybody can have an opinion and get it right one time in two. Or three. But it's the accumulation of knowledge, instinct, expertise, experience, gut feel, that gets you included among pro sports analysts. It's like baseball, in a way. For a game or two, or 10, a Triple-A'er can hang out with the big boys, when they are just clearing their throats, just getting in some swings, not going all out.

Anybody can pick winners on a pregame show, for a while; but that is not true professional knowledge, that is not noticing the telling nuance on the fly, bringing the little-known decisive moment or fact to life. It's what they pay people like me for. There's no other reason. It's not because they love me so much, or because they know I'll bring in a half-point's worth of ratings, and I don't believe that it's because I'm black, although you'd have to ask the media I work for. All I know for sure is, when the pro begins to apply his knowledge, in whatever occupation, then comes the separation. Just like what color you are, it's not something you look down and notice when working.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me say Rush Limbaugh e-mailed me as this pro football season started, was complimentary of some things he'd read that I'd written about the NFL on Page 2. I e-mailed back, saying I was looking forward to hearing his take on the games, and that a truck driver had once told me, 10 years ago, when I was out on tour with a non-sports book that was poorly titled "What Black People Should Do Now" -- I was going for an ironic title there, but cut it too fine, and people read it literally, and thus the book failed -- that he thought Rush and I had a lot in common (except for key fact I didn't point out to the truck driver; Rush could afford a private jet, and I couldn't). One key here. I didn't tell Rush whether the truck driver had been white or black (he was white; but the telling point is, you were curious, weren't you?), because in this case, it shouldn't matter.

If only Rush had kept on e-mailing me, then I could have told him, "Not McNabb. Wrong dude. If you want to make that point, you should say ..."




***** ***** *****



Rush was going along OK, picking winners and losers, giving opinions, just like anybody else who'd been lucky enough to be picked to be on an NFL pregame show. I ought to know. I've been there myself.

The first week, right out of the box, to prove himself, and establish his presence with authority, Rush picked a road dog, the Patriots to beat the Bills in Buffalo. The Bills won 31-0. The next week, Rush picked the Patriots to beat the Eagles in Philly. This time, New England won. So far, Rush is batting .500, (the pro analyst will bat .550 -- .750 in crunch-time -- and there's the difference) -- which is about like everybody else; hitting and missing, picking winners, giving opinions about who can play and who can't, and at which level the good player becomes mediocre. It was clear, at least to me, Rush had sources (I know he had sources in and around the league; he mentioned consulting one of them about something I had once written about life at NFL training camp, whether or not it was authentic; this source told him it was; so Rush complimented me; the key here is Rush had to ask if it was authentic. I don't have to ask whether, say, "Playmakers" is authentic).

Here's where the lightning struck.

I'm just speculating now, but maybe it occurred to Rush, or to Rush's ego, on a completely logical level, as large egos begin to see logic, that he had not yet been Rush, that he hadn't yet made an appropriate impact. Rush is a mover and a shaker of public opinion, a big-number guy, a drink-stirrer; once he really starts rolling, being Rush, the viewership bump would really spike; the way he does that is by being controversial, plucking emotional strings.

Plus, Rush had a speaking gig coming up, delivering the keynoter to a gathering of broadcasters in Philly the first week of October -- Thursday, Oct. 2, to be precise. That would be four days after Rush said, "Sorry to say this, I don't think (McNabb) has been that good from the get-go; I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, black coaches and quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Rush, or his sources, or both, apparently don't think that much of the skills of McNabb. On the other hand, some people do. Jon Gruden, probably the top offensive talent evaluator in the league right now, raved about McNabb from that same get-go, the Senior Bowl of McNabb's senior year out of Syracuse. Gruden raved about what a great pro McNabb would be. Loved him. McNabb has since made Pro Bowls and twice played in the NFC Championship Game and two years ago finished runner-up as the MVP of the entire league. And he isn't even 30 years old.

Even in that ill-fated NFC title game loss, he was directing an inspired drive against the Tampa Bay defense, one of the best of all-time, until he threw a pick-and-go to Bucs cornerback Ronde Barber inside the Tampa Bay 10-yard line. McNabb has the skins on the wall, but that does not absolve him from critiques of his performance, informed or not.

The discussion was about like it is with all NFL quarterbacks, on balance, so far pretty normal. But it was the insertion of McNabb's race as a factor favoring his media coverage, and as a factor in the host institution (the NFL) and its reaction and support of McNabb, was purely political. And that, not sports, is what Rush does to inflame the populace and bump his numbers. Period. That's what he does. So we can't act all surprised. Rush couldn't lay back and just be one of the boys talking ball and still be Rush. And he just had to be Rush. He had to try to turn it into an anti-affirmative action, hot-button debate about the liberal media that would inflame the part of the audience that expects such inflammation from him, and thrives on it.

Here's where the lack of football knowledge hurt Rush. His point could not be covered in a football sense, which made suspect his further speculation that the media and the league favored McNabb, and therefore all African-American quarterbacks. But, God help us, if he had chosen Kordell ...

"Sunday NFL Countdown" had suddenly become "Meet The Press." Or maybe "Triumph of the Will." Or at least of the Rush.

The Eagles were coming off a bye week, after looking pretty lame, McNabb included, in home losses to Tampa Bay and New England, not coincidentally the last two Super Bowl champion defenses. The 0-2 Eagles were going to Buffalo, itself coming off a loss to the Dolphins in Miami, no doubt looking to get well. And remember, the Bills had looked good that first week. And Rush has that speaking engagement coming up in Philadelphia ... hmmmm ...

In a perfectly logical marketing move, but perfectly naive football move, Rush went on the air and basically did what Rush does. He decided to do a power move, and use McNabb to make his point, figuring McNabb would be down in flames again, and Rush would not only be hotter on ESPN, but also in Philly to, you will forgive the expression, crow about it.

It was completely logical, not what he said, but the fact that Rush Limbaugh would say it. Completely logical -- except for the football part, and the social part. What he said was, in fact, incorrect. I'm not talking about right and not right. Guys (and gals) are right and not right about football every weekend on ESPN. I myself think, for instance, Kurt Warner is overrated, but I am not going to add a theory that Warner is being propped up by the league and the St. Louis media because he is white. But would I, or anybody else, think it? Do we see ourselves and our own fates personified by who's under center? This is where Rush insinuates himself, into your less-than-better self. His point, if pressed, would be that he was talking about what's in the media's mind and hearts, which you can throw into question about basically anything.

Rush could have been content with staying with picking scores, evaluating performances, calling into question players' abilities, and helping "Sunday NFL Countdown" enjoy that ratings bump until the cows came home, and it would have been no problem. But, simply put, that wasn't enough for Rush. He had to be the bell cow. He calls into question McNabb's abilities and the intentions of the NFL and media covering it, pitting both against the white male majority, essentially, then sitting back and watching a bomb go off. He was incorrect, but people are incorrect in evaluating football players virtually all the time.

The only question is, was he correct about the "Social Concern" part?

The great thing about text, even in an audio/video sound-bite world, is that sometimes it's the only way to closely examine truth and falsehood.

Being correct has gotten a bad name, because all somebody has to do is shout "political!" in front of your correctness, and suddenly it's a bad thing.

Now if Rush had e-mailed me, I would've told him, "Rush, if you want to generalize about unspoken feelings about black quarterbacks, I'd advise against it. But, hey, you're you and you're gonna do what you're gonna do. I'd wait until I had a speaking gig in Chicago, if I were you, then you can questions Kordell Stewart's abilities until your heart's content. At least you'll be right about the football part."

Even if Rush had kept reading his Page 2 R-Dub & Road Dog NFL columns (he probably did) he would at least have been delivered of the opinion that the Eagles were lacking in areas around and other than McNabb. But Rush didn't do that. Or worse, he did, and then flew in the face of it, rendering any prior compliments to me moot. He chose to go after Donovan McNabb and make him the anti-affirmative action baby.

Wrong guy. (Whew!)

McNabb was the wrong guy to pick. Or, the right guy to pick, if you don't have much of an agreement with Rush's methodology.

McNabb is the right/wrong guy for the same reason Jackie Robinson was the right/wrong guy. Among the best of the young African-American NFL quarterbacks -- Steve McNair, Daunte Culpepper, Michael Vick and McNabb -- if we insist on breaking them down that way, McNabb might be the least QB-skills gifted among them, just as among Jackie Robinson, Henry Aaron, Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente, Robinson might have been the least skilled as a baseball player. But Jackie was still plenty gifted enough to be a Hall of Famer. But he was even more, and I sense the same in McNabb. The others are accomplished (McNair has been to a Super Bowl, two AFC title games; Vick has already won a playoff game at Lambeau Field, something no other opposing quarterback has accomplished, Culpepper has been in an NFC title game), but not necessarily verbal. They cannot defend themselves in the clinchés of little verbal political games nearly as well as they play football; they could not come back and spar with the likes of Rush or his quoted material being thrown in their faces for rebuttal. But it was no problem for McNabb to rebut it.

"I'm sure he's not the only one who feels that way," McNabb astutely said in a news conference, a few days after surprising some, but not the people who really know pro football, by leading the Eagles to a 23-13 victory over Buffalo, and taking some of the steam out of Rush's stride. "But it's somewhat shocking to actually hear that on national TV." (So, McNabb had identified the nerve that Rush works for a living, admitted it was there, and then expressed shock one would let one's worse self be on public display.)

"... A free ride from the media in Philadelphia? That's a good one." (McNabb exposed Rush's lack of knowledge of sports media by locale, by reminding us that in Philly he had been booed on draft day, and that Philly fans boo everyone from Mike Schmidt to Santa Claus, let along Donnie McNabb, and that the Philly press, like the New York press, only worse, treats every game outcome as if it were the pivotal battle for World War II, and if you lose; you're a bum).




***** ***** *****



Let us crush two notions with one stone. First is the notion that quarterbacks are paragons of intelligence who hang in the pocket until the last minute to deliver passes in their down time from composing sonnets and concertos and writing motivational speeches for businessmen and splitting the atom. Oh, please. Really.

Four of the five best quarterbacks ever were Johnny Unitas, John Elway, Joe Montana and Steve Young. Of the four, Unitas might have been the best football player. Definitely he would have score the lowest on the SAT. There are mushrooms that would have scored higher on the SAT. Unitas was no genius. No book genius. No verbal genius. As far as being "pocket passers," the term is used for white quarterback in media; but that is simply the classic quarterback pose if that QB is on a team good enough to consistently form an impregnable pocket around him.

You can't be a pocket passer while the defense is sending sellout blitzes at you. Then you must adapt, modify, improvise. Then you must play football.


Every great quarterback has been able to run, white or black, at one point or another, until they either got too old or too busted up to do so. This is football, people. These are not the wheelchair games. Unitas would be 40 yards downfield flying in front of his ball-carrier running a reverse, throwing cross-body blocks. Fran Tarkenton must have run 200 miles behind the line of scrimmage alone. Montana ran like the wind. Elway was a runner, as was Young. This is no new phenomenon, because black quarterbacks do it.

What is relatively new is the spiked degree of difficulty of the position, with all the exotic blitzes and speciality edge rushers and size and speed of the defenders today. Charlie Ward, Heisman Trophy quarterback of Florida State and point guard on the Seminoles basketball team, decided to play in the NBA and forsake football, the game at which he had true genius, because of the beating required to play the position. "I've seen what happens," Ward said, alluding to several Florida State quarterbacks being greviously injured in practice while he was there. The rise and proliferation of black NFL QBs since Doug Williams won the Super Bowl in 1988 has more to do with the increased degree of difficulty of the position than any "social concern."

There are only a small number of people who can actually physically and mentally -- like combat, it has more to do with fortitude and cunning than intelligence -- play quarterback in the NFL. And there are not that many. There are more Ron Jaworskis of any color than John Elways of any color, with Elway being the standard of QB play.

To me, Steve McNair is the closest thing out there to the standard that is John Elway. We do find it interesting that Jaworski always says you must run the game from the pocket. It serves his own playing style and memory, his own persona, and ego. That's exactly the feeling that Rush preyed upon. We all vicariously play through the people on the field on NFL Sundays -- reflecting our own unique frame of reference. If they look like us, are we more likely to root for them?

Is there an undercurrent of false knowledge that does discriminate against the likes of a Peyton Manning? Again, to the trained eyes, and not even to every trained eye, but certainly to mine, Peyton Manning is a great quarterback. The fact that he has not won a playoff game -- yet! -- speaks more to the quality of the team around him than to Peyton. People say, "Yeah, he could never beat Florida when he was at Tennessee." Believe me, if Peyton had played for Steve Spurrier at Florida, or at Tennessee, they would have beaten Phil Fulmer at Tennessee, or Florida. But there is an undercurrent of false hipness and currency to a media perception about Peyton Manning's supposed shortcomings. Is it based on the color of his skin? Absurd, I know, but is it? That's what Rush was preying on.

You can have a pro like Kordell Stewart or a collegian like Carlyle Holliday, who either are too mechanical (Stewart) or have little or no feel for the position in the pro style (Holliday), but who are very mobile. And you can also be not the most mobile (Manning) and have a total feel for the position. Black and white have nothing to do with it. But do not think Peyton Manning is not a tremendous athlete. His father Archie was the best athlete I had seen at the position, before Elway came along. For some reason, even the Colts' own kicker thinks he knows better, is hipper to some better way of both playing QB and coaching. Mike Vanderjagt not only knocked Peyton, he knocked his coach, Tony Dungy, who is of this black faction that Rush cut out of the mob and claimed was getting a leg up on other coaches from the league and the media.

The Colts are now undefeated, going into Tampa Bay on Monday night. Regardless of the outcome of that game, there is little question that barring the unforeseen, within the next year, and then for the next five years or so, Manning and Dungy will play for the right to go to the Super Bowl a time or two, maybe even three. Dungy is stoically building another championship-level defense, just as he built the one in Tampa Bay, this time to complement the higher offensive skills of Manning. It's not a matter of the media or the league wanting or not wanting either one of them to do well, Rush. People (media is, surprisingly, made up of people) who cover the individual teams always want them to do well, whether they pretend objectivity or not; they want to cover good teams, winning teams, they want good teams to represent them, and the players and coaches who get hired in the NFL -- getting hired being key, and this is what Rush was leaning toward, who gets hired, and is this affirmative action? -- they either get it done, or they don't. The media does have its shortcomings. Propping up undeserving minorities is not one of them. Not after they are exposed as having shortcomings, anyway.

Fascinating.




***** ***** *****



McNabb said it was shocking.

Yeah? Wait until Donnie finds out that performance has nothing to with the so-called "social concern" Rush was talking about. Whatever somebody is accusing you of doing, nine times out of 10, that's what they are guilty of doing. McNabb can't play quarterback any better than Willie Mays played the outfield. And yet there were major-league teams, who were in the business of baseball, who did not sign Mays after trying him out. Now that's a social concern. All McNabb can do, for the time being, is play, and be glad to have the opportunity to play, because it didn't have to be that way. But it will be interesting to see what McNabb does in future years, how this impacts him.

How do I know this? Sometimes ESPN.com will sponsor a chat, and invariably, with all the good sports questions that come in to me, there will be some that, how shall I say this, express "social concern." They accuse me of being racist, talk of how I and some of my occasional writing styles bring down the quality of writing for good educated people. Invariably, I will post one of those replies in the marathon chats, just to remind, not the readers, but myself, that some people can't get past color to performance, no matter what you do, no matter how well you perform. I know that I have forgotten more about composition than any of the hateful posters and their descendants will know in their lifetimes. And yet I end up defending my credibility again and again simply because of a trait I can't even see unless I look in a mirror.

That's the wrong Rush did, not to ESPN, not to the media, but to McNabb, McNair, Dungy. It's no matter, "moot" as McNabb said, that Rush can say he was simply questioning the so-called liberal media. Black coaches and quarterbacks who do not perform at the championship level in the NFL will be replaced soon enough, just as white ones will. But why foster resentment against the good black coaches and quarterbacks who perform, simply to get more attention from manipulated viewers of the very same media whose intentions you decry?

Rush's speculations were intriguing.

They were born of ego and power, and prey on suspicions and fears.

The great thing is that I can write this as well as think it.

I'm sorry Rush left so soon.

But to say "No mas" was the smart move.

It was about to get ugly.

Rush picked the wrong guy.

And I wish it was as simple as that.

 

Originally posted by giddyup
Please inform us of Rush's racist history. We're waiting... and don't try that "everybody already know it nonsense..."

I'm not going to indulge this in any seriousness. DonnyMost said it better than I could. You fit his description quite well.

Sammy got so much attention because his freakin' bat was corked (who else has recently been busted on that) and he is in the hunt for some significant baseball records. Baseball purists don't go for questionable judgement much less outright illegal behavior. Ask Pete Rose.

Why don't you give Sosa the same leeway to explain away his condemnation using his race as you're giving Limbaugh to dismiss McNabb? Well because what's good for conservative race baiters isn't good for anyone else.

I think Dusty Baker had a very legitimate opinion. He only had 30 years in baseball to back it up.

How is it a legitimate opinion? Has he conducted a study on skin tone and differences in player performance in the heat? I seriously doubt it.

You can't be afraid of the truth just beause it has a racial component to it. For the record, I think Jimmy the Greek got screwed out of a career. Howard Cosell's "little monkey" comments I have way less sympathy for. Of all these examples, that would seem to me to be the most hateful (emphasis seem), but then you have to reconcile that with his ardent support and admiration for Muhammad Ali.

Actually you have it backwards. Howard's comments were totally innocent, he'd used that little monkey comment before about a white player. What happened to him was wrong and quite unfortunate. Jimmy the Greek I have no sympathy for however.

 

Originally posted by JayZ750
If the argument is between his statements being "race baiting" / not "race baiting", how can you say he didn't deserve a chance to prove himself because it was "race baiting" - that's what's being debated, right?.


No, what's happening is people like giddy defending race baiting by saying it's just an observation and it's an opinion and then saying we have no right to give our own opinions calling it what we believe it to be. Here you are saying race baiting needs to be given legitimacy with an opportunity to hear proof that we know doesn't exist. How would you quantify overhypedness by the media by the way? It's incredibly subjective and allows room for incredible spin which is the point of the whole Rush game in the first place. What you favor is to allow him the opportunity to use that forum to spin, decry the media, and promote his political agenda. Things that are popular on his show where his listeners make up angry white males and staunch right wing conservatives but not quite so popular on a sports show where the listening audience isn't as prone to accept that type of propaganda.

Coverage of those events weren't nearly as hgihgligthed by the media. Sammy's race related comments were barely touched upon - I know I didn't hear about it over and over again.

Well you didn't pay much attention then. However, Sammy doesn't have a history of race baiting and he's not an influential politico with millions of brainwashed listeners.

My argument is that you just don't know, as you don't know whether or not Limbaugh was being racist by nature or just being offensive.

So how many times must someone be racially offensive to get your stamp of approval for being a racist? He's on a sports show and he's already bringing up race to denigrate a player. How often has Howie Long or Jim Nantz or whoever the heck talked about race in the evaluation of a player? Oh... never? Rush did it because that's what he does. I don't need to look too far to understand that.

Do you disagree with the fact that black quarterbacks are percieved differently in today's NFL? If so, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. In my opinion, it is blatantly obvious that there is a disparity between how black and white quarterbacks are perceived. In my opinion, perception can lead to overhypeness of both black and white quarterbacks. No, I don't think Peyton Manning is the next Joe Montana jsut because he is a good smart white quarterback - often the media will overlook his completel failure in the playoffs to this point in the career. Similarly, the media has rarely (I guess never before) questioned McNabb's offensive abilities in terms of carrying his team, when, in all reality, the defense has played an enormous and largely overlooked role in the Eagles successes teh past seasons (having lived in Philly for some of those years I can tell you that the offense was painfully anemic to watch at times). Do I discount any of McNabb's hard work, skills, abilities, contributions to the team, etc? No. But I do try and take them at face value. He is a freakishly good athlete and quarterback, one of the best in the league, but I certainly feel at times the media's tendency to group a lot of black quarterbacks together as athletes as opposed to quarterbacks has meant that not as much attention has been paid to McNabb average passing abilities (passing yards and statistics aside, he makes plays with his feet, is an average thrower....IMO, which is the key here - but I guess that makes me a racist).


I believe some people perceive black quarterbacks differently because currently there aren't as many black drop back quarterbacks as white drop back quarterbacks. I think I perceive Warren Moon and Michael Vick differently because well they are different, same thing with Brett Favre and Peyton Manning... they're different type players. There are some black QB's and white ones for that matter in the league who are hyped and continue to get opportunities because of their athletic ability, not because they're a certain color. For example, Kordell Stewart and Jake Plummer are essentially the same guy. They both aren't very good but they keep getting chances because of their athleticism not because of their skin color.

You say McNabb is an average thrower?

McNabb's career QB rating is 77.

Drew Bledsoe's career QB rating is 77.3.

Do you contend that mister franchise quarterback, Drew Bledsoe is an average thrower? Maybe your perception of white quarterbacks leads you to believe they're better passers than they really are and your perception of black quarterbacks as "athletes" leads you to believe they're lesser passers than they really are. Maybe we should just drop the race based perceptions and deal with reality.


So now you're discounting Carr's year? Racist

What?!! I factually pointed out he led the worst offense in the league, on one of the worst teams in the league, had much fewer yards rushing than McNabb, and a much lower average yards per carry and that makes me racist? Hehe... that's funny.


I feel they are marketed differently. Because I feel this way, you think I'm a racist, apparently. I feel that Warren Moon was more often compared with Randall Cunningham than Dan Marino. I feel that Doug Williams has been appointed a special spot in history due to his status as a black quarterback. I feel that race plays a role. That's the gist of it. We know it certainly plays a role in hiring policies. I think it plays a role in more aspects. You can disagree. It shouldn't make either of us a racist.


No I feel Steve Young and John Elway were far more often compared to Randall Cunningham than Warren Moon, excepting the fact that Moon and Randall may have been compared as being two of the few black quarterbacks in the league. Doug Williams has a special spot because of what he accomplished. Jackie Robinson similarly has a special spot not simply because he was a black player but because of the history of black players in baseball, or lack of it, and the precedent he set. What you're saying about Doug Williams would be like me saying Neil Armstrong is given a special spot in history because of his status as an American astronaut and not because he went to the moon.

 

JeffB-

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just don't think it's ludicrous to say that certain balck quarterbacks have been overhyped because they are black. In the NFL, the question of black/white has patially overshadowed the sport in terms of head coaching and quarterbacking (hence my Doug Williams question).

I love the Eagles. They are the team I always root for in the NFC. And McNabb is deserving of the credit he gets. Maybe not deserving of all the hype, though (very few athletes are imo). My point is that he is hyped up both because he has proven he is good/great and for other reasons - he's mobile, he plays through the pain, and partly, yes, because he's black. That's just my feel.

 

I'm glad you mentioned this. I just hate balk quarterbacks.

They sit back there in their pocket, faking a throw, pumping, faking, pumping... SACK! Everytime. Ryan Leaf was a balk quarterback, and so was that pathetic guy at Buffalo for a while.