Racial demographics of the ideal team?

[yanling]

As we all know, NFL teams are all majority black, with some being more so than the others.

As we also all know, those NFL teams featuring a greater number of white players are generally superior to those NFL teams that are almost completely black.

Knowing all this, what do you believe to be the ideal ratio on an NFL team between white and black players?




My own opinion is:

On Offense</span></span>

Quarterback and all backups = all white

Offensive line and backups = all white

Wide outs and backups = some black, some white

Fullbacks and Runningbacks = some black, some white

Tight Ends and backups = all white

Field Goal Kickers = all white

On Defense</span></span>

Punters = all white

Defensive Line = mostly white, some black

Linebackers = mostly white, some black

Safeties and Corners = some black, some white


When I say "all white" I am of course speaking in generalities; if an outstanding black offensive lineman or TE showed himself to be capable of taking a slot, of course he'd be on the team.</span>

All told, I think my team would be 75% white.</font>

Edited by: yanling

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I don't know about an ideal team, b/c some positions on a team don't have enough players to get an accurate ratio, but I'll give a racial breakdown by position of overall NFL Numbers percentage wise IMO.

I am going to stick to just black and white to make it easier. I am sure other races deserve a shot as well, although many ethnic groups and nations are far more interested in other sports (ie. Hispanics and baseball or the Chinese and gymnastics and martial arts) Chinese and Hispanics are also smaller in stature and might be less likely ratio wise to succeed in football anyway. The Chinese for instance, might be better suited for things like martial arts, tennis and gymnastics where size isn't as important. And as far as east Asians there are less east Asians in America then blacks anyway.

QB: 85% white, 15% black (approximately 4 or 5 black starters in the league)
O-Line: 85 % white, 15% black
TE: 85% white, 15% black
WR: 75% white, 25% black
RB: 60% white, 40% black
FB: 80% white, 20% black (Many FBs would be deserving of carries in power running situations if it were fair)
DE: 80% white, 20% black
DT: 80% white, 20% black
MLB: 80% white, 20% black
OLB: 75% white, 25% black
FS: 65% white, 35% black
SS: 75% white, 25% black
CB: 40% white, 60% black (speed is essential to this position, although there are plenty of whites who qualify in the large pool of population to choose from in this country. I have done research on how biased scout and rivals.com are)
K: 95% white, 5% black
P: 95% white, 5% black (blacks seem to have little interest in the kicking positions anyway)

Overall numbers in the league approximately:
75% white, 25% black. (This would indicate that blacks would be slightly more likely percentage wise to make it to the NFL based on their numbers in the U.S population.)
Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Colonel_Reb]

If the Caste System didn't exist, I think the percentages of starters would/should break down like this:

QB: 95% white, 5% black
O Line: 90% white, 10% black
TE: 80% white, 20% black
WR: 70% white, 30% black
RB: 50/50
FB: 60% white, 40% black
DT: 65% white, 35% black
DE: 70% white, 30% black
MLB: 70% white, 30% black
OLB: 65% white, 35% black
FS: 60% white, 40% black
SS: 60% white, 40% black
CB: 40% white, 60% black
K: 100% white
P: 100% white

Overall, about 70% white, 30% black, basically the same ratio of white to black starters as in 1969.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Yeah, the sixties may be a good indication of when players were actually selected by their merits. Northern American cities had a stronger influence in the league then and the south had just been desegregated. So the whole idea that blacks were held back back then, when America was "liberalizing" is ridiculous. Certainly the tide hadn't turned to the point where: white guilt, bias college recruiting to increase black attendance in college, liberal brainwashing and blacks supporting their own were pushing whites out of the league though.

 

[C Darwin]

For me, there is no ideal racial demographic. I just want society to stop discriminating against whites. The NFL can be 100% black. If they earn it, they have earned it. It's just that there is so much evidence that blacks are not earning their way up the ladder. How can anyone take them seriously? Edited by: C Darwin

 

[Kaptain]

100% white at every position. Football is a team sport that in an ideal situation would required total team cohesive. Diversity hasn't worked throughout any aspect of life in the history of mankind. I don't think we need a history lesson on the fall of empires.

There are plenty of whites that can play at the top level at every position. Having a few complaining minorities thrown in would only be disruptive and subversive to the team's goals.

Just another take.

 

[Liverlips]

Personally, I like the demographics of the 3-0 Air Force squad

 

[yanling]

I most definitely agree with the 1960s analogy; it seems teams played as much for each other as for themselves back then (probably had something to do with the way people were raised in general, but also the lower salaries and less hype for individual players, etc.).

I also agree that the racial breakdown (wording?) of teams was best in the 1960s. It's kind of a hip-hop league now, which is kind of grotesque to look at at times.

I don't think coaches and teammates would have taken kindly to privileged primadonna behavior back then. Someone like Lombardi would have probably slapped some faces.

 

[White Shogun]

Realistically, all positions would more or less be the same as the black / white ratio in the given population. Hispanics and Asians would be less likely to be evenly represented given their genetic predisposition to small stature, whereas a small population of Samoans might be overrepresented slightly, given their genetic predisposition to large body size.

In my opinion, straight line speed is overrated as a factor in football. It's a very rare occasion when a play boils down to a foot race between two players. Even the cornerbacks can bump off the line, and usually have safety help over the top. Furthermore, the speed differential between blacks and whites at the level (we're not talking world records here), size differences between players on the field, and size of the field for angles to run the ball carrier down make straight line speed even less important than other factors.

 

[lumsdenpower]

I think that receiver and running back and DB are a position who can be 50/50..other position should be like 75 percent white..and QB like 90 percent..

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Realistically, all positions would more or less be the same as the black / white ratio in the given population. Hispanics and Asians would be less likely to be evenly represented given their genetic predisposition to small stature, whereas a small population of Samoans might be overrepresented slightly, given their genetic predisposition to large body size.

In my opinion, straight line speed is overrated as a factor in football. It's a very rare occasion when a play boils down to a foot race between two players. Even the cornerbacks can bump off the line, and usually have safety help over the top. Furthermore, the speed differential between blacks and whites at the level (we're not talking world records here), size differences between players on the field, and size of the field for angles to run the ball carrier down make straight line speed even less important than other factors.

Very good post White Shogun, you are actually the one who convinced me to change my view on the WR and RB position demographics. Speed is just one factor of these positions and certainly not the most important. You can't be effective at 5'9 190 lbs as a RB if you run a 4.8, but the whole idea that all these blacks are so much faster and running 4.2's like drunken white fans and stupid media people like to think is ridiculous. Your average black RB would probably beat your average white RB in my estimate by less than half a step over 40 yards.

Essentially my view is that blacks might be slightly more inclined to make good speed/breakaway scat backs. They might be slightly better at making cuts going full speed. However I think whites are better power-cutback runners. Whites are better at making a quick cut or two right after getting the hand off and having the vision to follow blockers and accelerate well through the whole breaking any lousy tackle attempts. Whites are better at running between the tackles IMO and would probably have a higher median YPC, but blacks might have more breakaway runs leading to a slightly higher YPC average. Blacks would probably have more runs for losses also.

Sam McGuffie is really the player I am most excited about b/c he is really an open field breakaway RB that will change perceptions of the drunken white fans. I have never seen a white with breakaway skills as good as him and could even only name 4 blacks that run that way...Barry Sanders, Gail Sayers, Noel Divine and Ladamian Tomlinson.

CB is the only position that I would put a very slight black majority b/c it is the only position where speed is the most essential skill IMO. And I don't get how there are so many more white DEs than DTs when whites are stronger on average than blacks.

As far as WR: Whites have slightly better hands on average than blacks and are just as good at making quick moves off the line. Blacks have slightly more separation speed for longer routes. However, it is not really very significant when a QB usually throws the ball at two to four seconds on average. Whites are better at finding the seam in the defense also and making the tough grab across the middle. Whites also run just as good routes in my opinion on quick routes, but not quite as good on long ones.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[foreverfree]

In my opinion, straight line speed is overrated as a factor in football. It's a very rare occasion when a play boils down to a foot race between two players. Even the cornerbacks can bump off the line, and usually have safety help over the top. Furthermore, the speed differential between blacks and whites at the level (we're not talking world records here), size differences between players on the field, and size of the field for angles to run the ball carrier down make straight line speed even less important than other factors.

WS, that excerpt reminds me of something I read in Tim Green's The Dark Side of the Game, something like "There are very few plays where a player is required to run 40 yards in a straight line." Green also said that vertical leap is overrated too, except for batting down Hail Mary's (or something to that effect).

John

 

[Ground Fighter]

Here's what my NFL would and SHOULD look like:

Offense:

QB's: 95% White - 5% black
C's : 95% White - 5% black
OL's: 90% White - 10% black
RB's: 50% White - 50% black
FB's: 80% White - 20% black
TE's: 85% White - 15% black
WR's: 55% White - 45% black

Total Offense: 78% White - 22% black

Defense:

DL's: 80% White - 20% black
DE's: 70% White - 30% black
LB's: 75% White - 25% black
S's : 60% White - 40% black
CB's: 55% White - 45% black

Total Defense: 68% White - 32% black

TOTAL: 73% White - 27% black

 

[White Shogun]

I don't understand you guys giving blacks 50% of the running back slots. Why? If it's based on the supposed 'straight line' average speed advantage, why do you only give blacks 45% at cornerback?

Do you ever consider how much slower a guy runs with pads than without? A stronger player will be less effected by the weight of the pads, so I don't even see that slight advantage in speed that you all talk about so much having that much of an effect on a football player.

 

[yanling]

I don't understand you guys giving blacks 50% of the running back slots. Why? If it's based on the supposed 'straight line' average speed advantage, why do you only give blacks 45% at cornerback?

Do you ever consider how much slower a guy runs with pads than without? A stronger player will be less effected by the weight of the pads, so I don't even see that slight advantage in speed that you all talk about so much having that much of an effect on a football player.

On a superficial level, I think I'd like to have fewer black players on my team simply because I find blacks and their various, unprofessional antics to be unsightly. At any rate, if even one third of NFL teams (say, ten or twelve) had a white runningback as a second string relief player, let alone the starting guy, it would be a huge deal to black "leaders" who would immediately cry racism.

 

[white is right]

Realistically, all positions would more or less be the same as the black / white ratio in the given population. Hispanics and Asians would be less likely to be evenly represented given their genetic predisposition to small stature, whereas a small population of Samoans might be overrepresented slightly, given their genetic predisposition to large body size.

In my opinion, straight line speed is overrated as a factor in football. It's a very rare occasion when a play boils down to a foot race between two players. Even the cornerbacks can bump off the line, and usually have safety help over the top. Furthermore, the speed differential between blacks and whites at the level (we're not talking world records here), size differences between players on the field, and size of the field for angles to run the ball carrier down make straight line speed even less important than other factors.

I totally agree on speed being overrated. Also fast NFL players are slow compared to world class sprinters. Most can barely break 11 for the 100 meter dash. Also virtually no running backs can break 11 as they are too bulky. True world class sprinters in the NFL can be counted on your fingers(over the years).