Texas Tech, you have written a LOT of things, some of which actually make sense. however, you are conveniently (or unintentionally) overlooking many facts that refute your claims. let me offer my two cents in this debate, if you please. i will quote your statement, then i will offer my rebuttal. for the sake of not quoting 3 pages of text, i'll just include your recent comments.
here goes. hopefully, this will prove enlightening to both of us.
The Biletnikoff is irrelevant. The winners produced stats that were accumulated against lesser athletic talent than they'd face on the next level. It's a meaningless trinket that my hold some sort of relevance in a eyes of naive simpletons...
the Biletnikoff Award, given to the nation's best wide receiver is irrelevent. interesting... i'm sure it only became irrelevent a year or so ago when Mike Hass won it, then. why, you might ask? because until him, EVERY Biletnikoff winner in the history of the award was picked in the first or second round of the NFL Draft. EVERY one. somehow, when whitey won it, the 'important' factor disappeared. convenient for you, i'd say.
...but pro scouts know better. Their wisdom and knowledge of the pro game runs much deeper than that. They are  cognizant of the fact that the pro game is on a whole different plane.
are these the same 'infailable' pro scouts who pegged Tom Brady as a marginally-talented NFL quarterback prospect who went in the 6th round? are these the same 'all-knowing' pro scouts who pegged All-Pro defensive ends (and NFL Defensive Players of the Month) Aaron Kampman and Jared Allen as career back-ups who'd be lucky to stick on a roster? Kampman wasn't picked until the 5th round, while Allen was chosen in the 4th. interestingly, Allen was expected to be nothing more than a deep snapper in the NFL. funny? it seems the scouts missed on those 'reports' huh?
Slower players do fall through the cracks, and do become successful all the time.. but they have a much taller hill to climb than those with ability AND speed.
Jerry Rice, who played against INCREDIBLY inferior competition and never ran faster than a 4.7-40 was picked in the 1st round (number 16 overall). those cracks sure weren't very wide for him to fall into. interesting... meanwhile, David Ball who broke many of Rice's collegiate records against the same level of competition AND was taller and faster than Rice (though, apparently far too white) has yet to see ANY game action in the NFL after not even being drafted. apparently, the white factor was too imposing to overcome, or is there another reason why a white athlete who compares favorably to the recognized 'greatest receiver of all time' would be so thoroughly ignored?
there's a crack for you.
.. because pro scouts, utilizing decades of intrinsic knowledge of the sport have determined each of those specific players lacked the tangibles and ability necessary to succeed on the next level.
please see my above rebuttal to this thoroughly egregious error. pro scouts miss on far more players than they hit on. if they didn't, the Arizona Cardinals would be good by now.
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. There is no race-based "slotting" in baseball.. it's called ability-slotting. According to CasteFootball, 98% of college stars are white.They have every opportunity to prove themselves in the middle infield, and centerfield just like all the rest of the speed guys in baseball. The scouts and management heirachy have just deemed the hispanic players better.
there is, of course, racial slotting in baseball. as you yourself say, 98% of American collegiate baseball players are white. yet, somehow, few of these guys are good enough to beat the hispanics who are signed in their teens. perhaps there should be a few American college regional teams to play against those 'amazingly gifted' Dominicans and Cubans. maybe the white guys would win, maybe not. but either way, there would be a solid example of who is better. as it is now, the white collegians are ignored in favor of Juan and Pedro and their hoped-for green cards.
Are you trying to infer than someone in college automatically runs faster than someone in high school?
i certainly hope so. otherwise, all these strength/speed/conditioning coaches in college are the best thieves in America. a kid who is fast in high school SHOULD get faster after physically maturing and getting coaching to improve his technique, strength, and nutrition. else, why should they even bother to train?
When Casey Combest ran a 6.57 60m at the high school indoor championships his senior year, you know that he ran faster than the winner of the college 60, right? He never ran that in college, or ever again. Devin Hester ran a 4.33 40 in high school, and ran a 4.41 at the NFL Combine 4 years later.
to my knowledge, Casey Combest never ran track in college. therefore, it would be impossible for him to run faster than he did in high school. as for Devin Hester's time, it SHOULD show you how artificially inflated many 'official' high school 40 times are. otherwise, see my above point regarding collegiate coaching.
Jacoby Ford, the Clemson freshman who ran a 6.52 to win the ACC 60M, ran a 4.18 and a 4.19 40 yard dash in high school. That's also MUCH faster than anyone ran at the combine. DIfferent people run different speeds.
this statement SHOULD have made you open your eyes. why? because if his 40 time 'is' accurate, that means Mr. Ford took
2.33 seconds to run the final 20 meters. funny, his speed SHOULD be fastest at that point... why would he be faster in the first 40 of his spring after accelerating from a dead stop than he would in the final 20 after already gaining speed?
i understand that a meter is slightly longer than a yard, but it isn't so long that it should create such a huge disparity. this is yet another indication that 40 times are far from accurate in many cases.
Okay, then what's the excuse for lack of production upon reaching adulthood. There's been an influx of "developed", adult European players into the NBA the past 10 years. Including Tony Parker, *5* European players were among the top 100 scorers last year. "Influx" = *FIVE*. Why is that? All we've heard over the past decade was the media's fantastic machinations of Euro-dominion. Yet the underwhelming result is five of 100. (then you go on to list a big scoring chart)
many of these Euros are far better players than their NBA careers would suggest. how can i say that? well, for example, Sean Marks (an end of the bench player for the San Antonio Spurs) has lit up the US National Team on several occasions when the USA played New Zealand. as i recall, in the 2002 Fiba World Championships, he dropped 28 points and 14 rebounds on the USA en route to leading NZ to a fourth place finish. he did this against Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. yet, he hardly sees the court in NBA action. odd, don't you think?
Sean Marks is just one of many examples of this sort of strange thing. Andres Nocioni comes off the bench for the Bulls, yet he destroyed the USA in international play for Argentina. i guess the Bulls starters are all better than the US National Team. shall i go on?
when the Italians defeated the USA the most recent time,
not a single Italian had ever been contacted to play for an NBA team. yet they beat our best! how could this possibly happen when NONE of them were good enough to even play in the NBA?
Greece beat the USA, too. yet the only player on their roster who had received a smell of NBA action was the lowest man on their depth chart. he barely even saw action for Greece! of course, he was black, and that made him better in the NBA's view than all those white guys on the Greek national team who routinely dominated him. sensing a pattern here yet?
White high school football teams excel because of their beefy offensive and defensive lines. Whites outnumber blacks 6 to 1 on this county, meaning there are 6 times as many 6-4, 280 pound linemen as black. Locally, they overwhelm physically smaller lines. The lines protect the quarterbacks, and open up holes for the runningbacks.
if this were true as you claim, then why are most of the highest rated offensive and defensive linemen prospects coming out of high school black? scout and rivals seem to think they are, at any rate. and 'they wouldn't lie' would they? there are 6 times as many white running backs and corners dominating their black competition, too... yet they must all turn invisible before they get to college because they certainly disappear.
Barry Sanders had 4.3 speed. Steven Jackson ran a 4.45 at the Combine. Shaun Alexander's a 4.5 guy.
Barry Sanders never ran close to that! i remember watching an interview on one of those annual Detroit Thanksgiving Day games where Barry was talking about his speed. he laughed at the notion that he was fast, and said he ran a 4.7 40. his talent, he claimed, was his incredible lateral quickness and ability to change direction so smoothly. this he attributed to his VERY thick ankles and TREMENDOUS leg strength. he added that at least a dozen guys on his team could outrun him in a foot race.
Steven Jackson ran a 4.45? really? you mean 4.55 don't you? and Shaun Alexander ran a 4.59 and a 4.6something as i recall... where are these divergent numbers coming from?
Jerome Bettis was a battering ram who produced with power. Emmitt Smith was a north/south guy who was a product of his offensive lines at Florida and Dallas. It was painful watching him run in space because he easily got caught from behind. Michael Irvin's body control, hands, and power were the something extra he brought to the table to compensate for his lack of speed.
why haven't we seen any 'battering ram' white running backs, then? i would have thought you'd at least claim Bettis was faster than he looked... he wasn't, but if speed is so essential how did he get the chance to play tailback? he was black, that's how. R.J. Bowers was a faster version of the same kind of runner for the same team... yet despite putting up impressive numbers during his lone stint for the Steelers, he was soon cut. too bad he was white, i guess. or was there some other reason for him to be cast aside?
there are plenty of white runners like Emmit Smith, yet none get the chance to show it... why? because even though he ran a 4.6 he was somehow still fast, while a white running back who runs a 4.49 (hello Brian Leonard) is still too slow...
if Michael Irvin's other skills overcame his lack of speed, then i'd suggest that other players might also have a similar skill set. no? why did he, a black man, get the chance to prove himself (if getting drafted in the 1st round, 11th overall is 'proving himself') while white men with similar attributes don't get that opportunity? oh, i think i already answered my own question.
It's easy to pluck people from yesteryear, and point out that their speed wasn't a detriment in yesteryear's game. The game has changed, and the current crop of coaches and scouts have adapted accordingly.
yesteryear? these are very recent examples! Michael Irvin retired in 1999. Jerry Rice retired early in the 2005 season after trying to make the Broncos. Jerome Bettis for instance, retired in 2006! it's not as if we're talking about Red Grange and Lance Alworth here.
the facts speak for themselves. there is obviously more to the situation than you are bringing to the table.
i await your response.
edited to correct a couple of typos and differentiate between meters and yards
Edited by: Jimmy Chitwood 
