I've been warned.

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Here are some of my posts on Footballs"black"furture.com carefully arguing for white players w/o being unfair. I was already caught with the Castefootball crowd under another name arguing in a David Ball thread. I have been careful to pick and choose my battles time and elude to stereotyping w/o actually bringing mentioning race:

Here is how I responded to all these blind fools who prefer Malcolm Kelly over Jordy Nelson:
Honestly I'd rather have Jordy Nelson as a WR then Kelly if I were a GM. Jordy is the most underrated WR in this draft. Mike Mayock made a comment exactly on that topic after the Senior Bowl of how he is shocked that Jordy has flown under the radar. Mayock said "it's kind of hard to be called a sleeper when you post the second best stats for a Division IA WR in the nation, but Jordy Nelson has been labeled just that, but he's a very good player. He answered a lot of questions for scouts with his performance at the Senior Bowl this week by showing he can gain separation from top corners."

Jordy is quick, very agile and "fearless" going after the ball to make the catch. Jordy is also a solid route runner who could still improve there b/c he has only been playing WR for 3 years total in his entire life and didn't run a wide variety of different routes while at Kansas State. Jordy is faster than Kelly too as shown by his 4.49 40 time. So, sure it may be true that Kelly runs a 4.54 on a good track, but he still isn't any faster than Nelson who runs a 4.49. Jordy also had "much better" stats than Kelly. So in every way to me except route running Jordy Nelson is a better WR.

I don't get where all you guys are coming from saying Kelly had phenomenal college production. Jordy Nelson "doubled" Kelly's production this year. And don't use the Kelly missed "one" game with injury excuse. No way Kelly should be taken ahead of any of the top 5 WRs on my board. Devin Thomas, Limas Sweed, James Hardy, Desean Jackson and "sleeper" Jordy Nelson should all be picked ahead of Kelly.

This is my WR Big board. Top 10:
1. Devin Thomas
2. Limas Sweed
3. James Hardy
4. Desean Jackson
5. Jordy Nelson
6. Earl Bennett
7. Mario Manningham
8. Andre Caldwell
9. Malcolm Kelly
10. Early Doucet

Best College Walk-ons post. Funny how most of even the other posters best walk-ons were white. Here's what I wrote:
Well I know a lot about WR walk-ons. Jordy Nelson (Kansas State; Biletnikoff runner up this year, actually played QB in H.S and was a standout basketball player and won the Kansas 100 and 200 meter and long jump title), Kevin Curtis (Utah State), Kevin Kasper (receptions leader at Iowa and NFL short shuttle record holder), Ashley Lelie (Hawaii) and Mike Hass (Oregon State; Biletnikoff award winner) are great examples. Santana Moss (Miami) and Wes Welker (Texas Tech, kick returns for TD Div. IA record holder) were walk ons b/c of concerns about their height and are excellent NFL players. Any Walk-on that wins an award in college or becomes a big name in the NFL is pretty rare, they have an uphill battle to fight for playing time in college without a scholarship.

BTW: I'm perplexed as to why Mike Hass and Kevin Kasper had to walk-on in college, they had amazing H.S careers.


I posted this in a Thread Matt Ryan or Brian Brohm:

Other Poster wrote:
Many professional scouts had Leaf over Manning. Many professional scouts thought quite poorly of Tom Brady. Many professional scouts will be very off in their analysis of this years draft in hindsight. I've seen Brohm and Ryan play about 10 games a piece and IMO Brohm is better.


I responded:
Very good point; scouts are wrong a lot. Scouts are conservative by nature and don't want to do anything different than others which might make people skeptical of them. This is why, IMO, Mel Kiper had Jacob Hester as his #5 overall tailback a couple months ago before the juniors came out and now has him as his #3 FB. He changed his mind b/c the momentum got going against all reasonable logic to label Hester as a FB and he didn't want to be questioned for being different. Hester is a powerful guy w/ a large frame and he played FB before. Maybe he just doesn't look like your traditional HB "in many ways" to uninformed fans if you know what I mean.

Mr. Joe Potato Chip eater:
"That guy for LSU, Hester, he's their FB right? He must be!"
"No? Well obviously he'll be one in the NFL, I'll laugh my arse off if he gets a carry in the NFL."

It makes no sense at all, Hester isn't a very good blocker and posted better stats his senior year than Joseph Addai's senior season at LSU. Hester also has an identical 10 yard dash time to Darren McFadden, and although not very fast has an incredible burst, great vision to follow blocks and is an absolute bull to bring down. Hester is labeled too slow, when he ran a 4.6 flat which is very comparable to the NFL combine average for RBs this year of 4.57. Hester ran for 4.9 YPC in the difficult SEC w/o a lead blocking FB and being used often in third and short= quite impressive.

Hester was the go to guy for LSU for the tough yards. He is not as much of a game breaker as Keiland Williams, but if you want a guy who can get positive yards every time and a first down in about two carries Hester is your guy. Hester could break off some 20 yard runs in the NFL, although he would have few over 40 yards in his career if he plays a lot of HB. More positive evidence for Hester is that he has an 80+ yard run to his credit at LSU.

Basically Scouts are more comfortable doing the status quo. If you want to look at a site that isn't afraid to be different, look no further than Draftdaddy.com, which posts a link to this site, which is how I found Footballsfuture. Draftdaddy had Hester as their #10 overall HB until a couple weeks ago, and still have him in the top 15 overall HBs after others have moved up following their Pro Day showings. They aren't afraid to be different and as I said they also have Brian Brohm as their #1 QB.

Poster Wrote:
Troy Smith is the WORST heisman winner I can remember, although Eric Crouch is very close behind.

I Wrote:
The worst Heisman trophy winner at QB would be Danny Wuerfel, Troy Smith isn't even close to the worst. In fact I think Smith is good enough where he could be a solid NFL starter. The worst Heisman trophy RB? There are lots. Didn't Rasham Salaam and Kijana Carter win it?...talk about busts. Ron Dayne is nothing more than backup caliber in the NFL, but at least he has stayed in the league.

As far as Eric Crouch, I was a fan of his. Plain and simply the guy was as good of a running QB as Michael Vick, but didn't have good arm strength like Vick. Crouch had at least as good accuracy and decision making as Vick though. For some unknown reason the NFL tried to switch him right off the bat to WR, which he was not good at, when he could have more easily made the switch to RB.

Now I'm not saying Crouch would have been a great NFL QB, I'd say Flutie at absolute best (w/ better running skills, worse QB skills.) But it was utter non-sense switching him to WR. It would have made much more sense to switch a guy with that kind of elusiveness, speed and acceleration who was "great in the open field" to the RB position, which is what Crouch said he wanted to play if he wasn't wanted at QB.

nfldraftscout.com projected him as a top 20 RB that year. I think he could have become a decent NFL scat back who would have been good enough to see some playing time from watching game film of him. It makes absolutely no sense to make a guy who could clearly adapt to the RB position w/ practice a WR which Crouch himself knew he wasn't good at.

Rumor has it from a Rams blog I read that Crouch would lose concentration tracking the ball on long passes like a post route b/c he was afraid of getting defensively blindsided w/ crushing hits. However, Crouch was not afraid at all to take a hit w/ the ball in his hands where you are less defenseless. It made absolutely no sense to force an athlete as good as Crouch to play a position he had no interest in playing when he would have given full effort to learn RB, which he would have been better at anyway.

It's unfortunate NFL scouts are so small minded and instead of adequately looking at game film try to slot players into roles. I could just hear the pre-conceived ideas inside these scouts minds...
"Eric Crouch a RB? They won't take us seriously, but he could be the next Don Bebee."

Fortunately for me, I have been involved with sports my whole life, I played RB in H.S and briefly worked as an intern scout for Rutgers and I know how the recruiters work. Crouch should have been considered at RB in college, but I dare say wasn't considered for it by Nebraska (ie. Danny Woodhead, who was only offered to walk on at Nebraska, despite breaking the Nebraska H.S rushing record. He went on to take a Division II offer to Don Bebee's alma mater Chadron State and went on to break the all time interscholastic college rushing mark, breaking many defenders ankle's with mesmerizing moves in the process and then run a 4.38 at his Proday)

Rumor has it, Crouch may enter the new professional football league they created for 4 year college graduates this year and may actually play RB.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Now, here is where I was warned. I know I may get heat from you guys for plugging Rivers, but I have been plugging all white players, so I didn't want to seem over the top when I am arguing against stereotyping. Here is the post:
Other Poster wrote:
I really don't get it. Dan Connor is the best all year, wins all the awards, dominates at college level, and then Rivers comes along and shows that he can run 40 yards quicker and jump higher, and now he's elite and Connor is average. The exact same thing happened with Paul Posluzny last year.

I pray for the day people pay more attention to 3-4 year's college play than a couple of workouts that have nothing to do with football ability.


I wrote: I definitely hear what you're saying. In fact a site I'm a big fan of had this to say about a Connor scouting report, which I read that basically labeled Connor stiff, tight hipped and not a good athlete. All they could say about Connor that was positive was that he is a smart player with a great motor who is always in the right place at the right time who definitely makes the most out of his abilities. Here's what draftdaddy.com said in response.

DD.comment: We really feel bad for Dan Connor. The kid is a former 5-star recruit, largely based on his overall athletic ability as a tailback and linebacker as a prep prospect. He went to Penn State (Linebacker University) and shattered the schools' all-time tackles record. Then he put forth a nice display of athletic ability at Pro Day (4.67 40, 35" Vertical, 4.25 short shuttle, ect.), yet he can't shake the sterotype that he suffers from a "lack of athleticism" and has limited flexibility. We have no other comments -- we are left speechless, so we may as well move on to the next story.

There is a lot of stereotyping based on 40 times. I am a Rams fan and I was also shocked when virtually every scouting report last year said Brian Leonard doesn't have the speed to turn the corner and is stiff and lacks athleticism. Leonard's measurables (4.5 speed and game tape) say otherwise, but Tony Hunt who runs a 4.68 and is clearly a north south type guy had "much less disparaging remarks" in his draft profiles. The same thing with Mike Hart who runs a 4.67, nothing mentioned about his lack of athleticism in most reports.

Leonard ran for 3.9 YPC over the course of 3 games as a starter with Jackson injured behind a Rams offense that was missing 4 O-lineman, Bulger, Bruce and even Holt for two of the games. I'd say that's not so bad for a rookie in those circumstances. Watching him run, he certainly showed some speed to turn the corner and made yardage on broken plays even with porous blocking.

And according to Scott Wright of nfldraftcountdown.com Adarius Bowman is "very athletic" (he runs a 4.74), but Jordy Nelson "doesn't possess good timed speed and can't stretch the field." Jordy was a state champion in the 100 meters and 200 meters in H.S in Kansas and ran a 4.49 at the combine. You can see a clip of Jordy burning Aqib Talib (one of the top CBs) on Youtube. Not to mention Jordy's ability to make people miss in the open field. Jordy's stats were also so good this year that it puts Bowman's production to shame. To top that off it was only Jordy's 3rd year playing WR in his life. So what is really going on with all these misperceptions of scouts about athletic ability and 40 times?

All I can tell you, is having lived in Canada briefly (I'm a CFL fan) and having a friend who lives in Europe, scouts aren't labeling players to the same degree there. Soccer scouts seem to actually look at tape and evaluate players based on ability, not perception. I guess scouts just go with the flow of what others are doing in America. A team who takes Connor in the draft earlier than expected because they realize his resume as a player and that he is actually a good athlete will be rewarded. I'm going to go with Rivers as the better player though, by a hare.

Other Poster wrote:
Uhhhhh Ramscraziestfan if your discussing what I think you are here, your not allowed to do it on this site. Just a fair warning so you dont get banned.

I wrote:
What do you mean? I was simply just talking about 40 times, responding specifically to another poster who brought stereotyping players based on measurables up. Is freedom of speech not allowed? I didn't say anything inappropriate. I'm just being open minded; In fact it's people like Scott Wright that are creating problems in society by stereotyping which creates a mess for all people (slow ones, fast ones, short ones, tall ones). I thought we had gotten past these things in our society, but I guess not. I'm just trying to be the fair one.

I didn't know that Scott Wright was such a VIP on this site. Confused.

Moderator Wrote:
Well on this site your entitled to free speech for the most part.


8. You may not discuss race, religion, politics, or sexual-orientation on these forums. This includes references in usernames, signatures, avatars, and PMs.

What you were discussing stereotyping and comparing only white players to black players, could be deemed borderline race discussion. So end it right here and do not go any further with this discussion.

I wrote:
Oh well that isn't what I was trying to do. I simply was talking about Scott Wright who stinks as an annalist and was giving an example of how he unfairly labels players (fast ones, slow ones, tall ones, short ones) based on flawed reasoning. I mean, I think I showed some good evidence of fuzzy reasoning regarding athletic measurables. And my whole point of this thread was to debate who was the better player Dan Connor or Keith Rivers who are considered the two top LBs. I think Rivers is better, but it is very close.

Basically the thread got off track because one poster labeled Connor "average" and said that this debate isn't even close and basically made my thread seem pointless. Then another poster backed me up and said he wishes scouts would start looking at game film and what a player does in college which Connor exceeds Rivers at rather then stereotyping based on if a player can jump higher or run faster.

My point was just to back that poster up; that he is right that a lot of stereotyping goes on and I gave some examples of how draft annalists seem to have flawed reasoning when it comes to profiling even the athletic prospects. Basically, my point was to say that Connor might be a bit less impressive of an athletic specimen than Rivers, but that he is still a heck of an athlete and that scouts often make no sense anyway, as you can see with the scouting report draftdaddy.com linked and my example of Scott Wright.

So you see, even a moderate like me will get warned by these cultural Marxists. What has our society come to? This is sickening. So this site can not even include Jordy Nelson in their rankings b/c they hate white players, but if I bring up stereotyping and the problem of all the NFL WRs being black I can get banned? They act as if stereotyping doesn't exist b/c they are in full support of it.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Tom Iron]

Tough J. Riggins,

Doesn't matter what you say. They'll be looking to ban you now. Like I said on another thread, try making your points posed as questions. Many times these censors don't know how to react when they're faced with a question mark. I've got many letters to the editor published in liberal rags using this tactic.

Tom Iron...

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

... so, basically you're going to get banned for having the gall to express an opinion that differs from theirs?

If they truly believe that their position is the correct one, then they should have no problem debating you, and countering your arguments with arguments of their own.

Maybe they're just a bunch of sissies who enjoy preaching to the choir, but don't have the force of either personality or intelligence to sway those on the fence (or on the other side of it) to agree with their views, or even respect them.

The fact that they might ban you just because you won't join the herd tells me that they fear opposing points of view.

Maybe they're taking a page out of a 1955 Soviet government manual or something.

All this tells me that they are G-A-Y.

With a capital G.

 

[Gi-15]

Keep up the good work TJR! I liked the part on where you were discussing acceleration and agility(about J.Nelson), and the guy said something like "I know you will be a great poster here, I can feel it" thats was cool

 

[Mike]

Great job. Looks like you got the best of them.