Jump to content

Shaw66

Community Member
  • Posts

    9,852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shaw66

  1. You sound like a nice guy. You're living in a false reality. I hope someday you will see the truth.
  2. 716 - seriously, maybe you're all you say you are. Just hear this: If you think racism in this country is about a tiny, tiny, tiny minority, you don't understand what racism is about. Hear that, and let that sink in. Maybe you are 100% not part of the problem, but until this country recognizes racism is about most of the white people living here, we're going nowhere. The problem is everywhere.
  3. A message that more people are starting to hear and take seriously. Thankfully.
  4. Sounds good. I hope you're the one in a million. But when black people get together and talk about white people, you know what makes them laugh? They think it's funny when a white person tells them "I don't see color." You know why they laugh? They laugh because "I don't see color" makes the white guy feel good about himself, and the black folks know that is almost never true. As I said, I hope you're the one in a million. But if you think the problem is a tiny, tiny minority of people, you need to open your eyes. None of the people on Cape Cod, or very, very few, are in that tiny minority. The overwhelming majority are well-meaning people who say things like "I don't see color." And you know what? They don't see color because there are no black people there. How convenient.
  5. I don't disagree for a minute, and I'm not suggesting they were misdrafted at all. I don't watch a lot of college football, but when I watched Burrow I saw football maturity and intelligence that I don't think I've even seen in a college QB. He's spectacular. The discussion was about college stats and conference quality. If you compare their college careers and the conferences in which they played, statistically Fromm had a better career. The fact that Burrow is so much better is the proof that college career and conference strength is not the measure of what makes a good NFL QB. By the way, the reaction I had every time I saw Burrow play this year was simply wonder what's wrong with the Ohio State coaches. If I have a talent like Burrow but he doesn't quite fit my offense, I'm changing my offense.
  6. I thought so, and that is exactly the point. A majority of white people in the country have a problem with race. Only a small minority is outwardly racist. Look, all I can tell you is that I've discovered, as have many other white people discovered lately, that the way you're thinking about this is the way I thought about it until a few weeks ago. Then the light went on. So I understand what you think you know, and I understand why you vehemently disagree when I tell you that you're missing the point. All I'm telling you is that the reality that is so obvious to you, the reality you're so sure you're right about, actually isn't the reality at all. I believed in your reality until a few weeks ago. Let me give you an example. I don't know where you live. I live in New England. Cape Cod is a famous, very popular vacation area. It's an hour or so from Boston. Lots of beaches, bars, restaurants, hotels. Jam packed with people every summer, including this summer. There are practically no black vacationers on Cape Cod. There are black people cleaning hotel rooms, cutting lawns, and washing dishes, but there are pretty much no black vacationers. Why not? There are no laws keeping blacks out. It's not cheap to go there, but there are plenty of well-paid black people in New England who could comfortably afford a nice Cape Cod vacation. There's no KKK. Most of the white people who are on the Cape say what you say - that it's a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the people who cause the problem. Well, if that's true, and there essentially none of those people in New England, why are there no blacks on Cape Cod? The answer is that they don't feel welcome. Why don't they feel welcome? Because the white people on Cape Cod don't make them feel welcome, that's why. Now multiply that across the country. There are millions and millions of people who combine, most of them completely unwittingly, to make blacks feel unwelcome. We all do it. We don't do it to Italians, we do it less to Asians than to blacks. We just do it. It's a problem pretty much all of us have, including me. I've gone to Cape Cod for years, and it was only this summer that I noticed for the first time that there are no black people there. It's like there is an invisible "No Blacks" sign before you cross the bridge.
  7. Stank, I had to go out after I wrote that, and I was thinking about it some more. The fact that his college record is irrelevant is best demonstrated this way: I don't know how many non-power five conferences there are. Say there are 8. Ten teams each, that's 80 starting QBs. Of those, say a third are seniors. That's 25 draft eligible QBs from crappy conferences. How many of them have lousy stats or lousy records? Maybe 2/3 of them. So that's 16 guys with lousy stats from lousy conferences available in the draft every year. How many of those get drafted? None. None get drafted. Then Allen comes along, lousy conference, lousy stats, and he's a consensus top-10 pick. He SLIPPED from being the #1 pick. That tells you that Allen is an outlier, that his conference record is irrelevant. You know how else I know the lousy conference-lousy stats argument is useless? Because Jake Fromm had great stats and a great record in a great conference and he went in the fifth round. He has better career stats than Joe Burrow, who couldn't start in the Big 10. Allen is different. That's all. The sample size for great QBs is too small to reach any meaningful conclusions about a guy's future by superficial observations about his college career.
  8. I don't care what color you are. When you say "When it is literally a tiny tiny tiny majority," I know you don't understand. I'm not blaming you, and I'm not calling you out, I'm not doing anything other than noting what's already obvious to everyone who does understand. There is nothing "tiny, tiny, tiny" about the number of people whose behavior adds to the problem. I'm one of them who adds to the problem; I just couldn't see it until a few weeks ago.
  9. I'll tell you that you don't understand. If you want to understand, there are books you can read. People like you, who are well-meaning but don't understand, are a major part of the problem. I was one of those people until a couple months ago. I'll leave it at that.
  10. Wow. I come here almost every day during the off-season, even this off-season. Often, as the window is about to open, I wonder why I'm coming here, because there probably isn't any news, and if there's news, it's probably bad news. Hooray for today!!! We can take Ed off the bad-boy list.
  11. This post is why people don't like talking with you about this stuff. You're a smart guy, you know a lot about football, but your anti-Allen agenda gets in that way of having an intelligent discussion with you. This thread is about the Bills being #14 on a three-year list. Several people, including me, thing the ranking is too low. NOBODY, including me, thinks the Bills should be rated above the Ravens. No one said anything meaningful about the Ravens at all. The thread naturally turned into a discussion about Allen, because he is the single player who most can affect what the next three years looks like. Everyone agrees about that. NOBODY is arguing that Allen is better or will be better than Jackson. How good Jackson is has NEVER been a meaningful part of any discussion in this thread. You are correct that I think Allen will prove to be the better QB by the end of their careers, and I've expressed why, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the discussion going on in this thread. Still, you think it's somehow meaningful to take an interesting discussion about Allen's development and turn it into an Allen vs. Jackson discussion. The reason you do this is because, on the basis of their production so far in their careers, you can win that discussion and thereby establish that Allen isn't good. Whatever happens in Jackson's career is TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion we were having, and yet you bring it up. And then you begin to make your argument, which essentially is that Allen hasn't done what you want yet, so therefore he won't do it in the future. We can have that discussion sometime, too, and I'm sure we already have, but that discussion ALSO has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with what we talking about. We were talking about which teams above the Bills have better or worse three-year prospects in their QB rooms. You can make the case that you don't think Allen will get any better, and I can make the case, that you cannot refute, that Rivers is washed up and Brissett has already, and to a much greater extent than Allen, demonstrated the limits of his abilities. In plainest terms, the simple truth probably is that there are at least 20 GMs in the league who disagree with your assessment that Allen isn't likely to get better. But I don't want to argue with you about any of that.
  12. For a year, sure, but if you're the GM for the Colts or Steelers, you'd trade in a heartbeat. Allen is the ONLY QB on those three rosters who has the potential to be a franchise QB over the next 5-10 years. It's a total no-brainer. You tend to upset me and others because you don't share our optimism about where Allen is going, and I have to keep reminding myself of that. I think you see the same QB I see, which is a guy who wasn't nearly good enough last season and has to be substantially better. And I don't mean he needs better stats, because adding Diggs and Moss is going to give Allen better stats even if he doesn't improve. He has to be a better NFL quarterback than he's been. But I wanted to talk about a couple of others things that have been said here and in other threads that I think need to be de-bunked. I don't think you, Biscuit, said them all, so what follows is a general response. If the shoe fits, etc. First, this notion that Allen may have been one of the longest shot first round QBs in history is baloney. Allen has extraordinary talent, brains, work ethic, etc. That's why he was talked about as a number 1 over all pick, and that's why he was essentially a lock to go in the top 10. He was not more of a long shot than any other QB drafted in the top 10 but not #1 overall. Second, this idea that because he had crappy stats and a lousy record in a crummy conference is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. If it meant anything, Allen never would have been able to perform as an average NFL starter and be a league leader in fourth quarter comebacks. It is completely clear that Allen's college performance is not a measure of his ability or his potential. And it was completely clear to NFL GMs, which is exactly why Allen WAS a top 10 pick. Allen already has outperformed the typical crappy college record QB by so much that it's clear that that history counts for nothing. The bottom line is that Allen's past is totally irrelevant to whether he will succeed in the NFL. The fact that his college career wasn't Heisman-level is irrelevant. Even the fact that he has steadily improved within each of his first two seasons in the NFL is irrelevant. His steady improvement is part of what makes me optimistic, but I get that he can plateau at any time. Allen needs to be better, plain and simple. I'm optimistic, you're less so. I'm fine with that.
  13. And the Colts, with a bigger question at QB and a lesser roster, are ranked higher. I mean, really, who in his right mind would bet on the Colts'QB roommover the Bill's? And the same can be said about the Steelers. Both of those teams would trade QB rooms with the Bill's in a heartbeat.
  14. Oh, yeah. I agree it's a classic. One of the great signature calls. No one else can use it.
  15. And this is true. These guys' jobs depend on being entertaining, not on being right. All their bosses care is that they say things that keep people from turning them off, things that are likely to bring people back. Nobody ever goes back and demonstrates how totally wrong they may have been six months earlier. In theory, an expert gets things right. These guys are billed as experts, but they don't have to get anything right. They just have to sound good. So, what does that mean? It means they have to say things that sound right now, even if with analysis you can see they're wrong. That is, it has to sound right to most of the fans. So that means they have to say Mahomes is the best QB and the Chiefs are the best team, because that sounds right to most fans. And because most fans think the Bills are horrible and always will be horrible, they have to dis the Bills in discussions like this. If someone says the Bills should be #5 on the list, even though he might be right, most fans turn the guy off because, really, as far as they're concerned there's no way the Bills ever will be that good. These guys just give the public what they want.
  16. I don't watch much of that stuff, and I don't even know who Yates is, but I have to say I agree about Riddick. He's level headed and has good reasons for the opinions he expresses. I don't always agree with him, but I never dismiss as a fool.
  17. Nice try, but that is not what he means when he says "Yes! And it counts!" If he meant what you say, then sometimes he would say "Yes, but it doesn't count." He only says it when it's a continuation play, the foul was called, and the shot goes in. What he means when he says "Yes, and it counts!" is "yes, and he was fouled!" So he's using words - "and it counts" to mean "and he was fouled," which doesn't make literal sense. But he's done it for so long, everyone knows what it means, and it's a signature call.
  18. I can argue with a lot of them New England, Pittsburgh and Indy are the obvious mistakes. Drop them to where they should be and the Bills are #11. I think they'll do better than #11 over the next three years, but I agree that it's at least defensible to put them at #11. #14 is the middle of the pack. How do you put a team that went to the playoffs last season, is young and clearly improving (Allen's improving, and they added Diggs and they lost essentially no one) in the middle of the pack? It's just stupid.
  19. Not worth responding to. So the principal problem with the Bills - #14 - over the next three years is at QB with Allen. And the Colts are #10, with Rivers, Brissett, Eason and Chad Kelly. Rivers, whose passer rating last year was 88, in the range of Allen's 85 and way short of what's necessary. With more or less no receivers. The same rules apply - the Bills only get respect for what they've done historically. They never get the benefit of the doubt in this kind of analysis. That's just the way it is. If we're betting on the three-year records of the 32 team over the next three years, if the over-under on the Bills is 14, I'm taking the over all day, every day. 9-7 three years in a row gets them over 14.
  20. I find it quite remarkable that so many people are saying "Stand pat, the roster's good enough already." That's pretty much my view. I don't want them to buy a star like Clowney. His price tag will reflect that he's supposed to be a standout player, but McDermott wants blend-in guys, not stand-out guys. Players whose salary is at the franchise-tag level are usually overpaid, and they also often have inflated egos. If their current teams aren't willing to pay them at the level they want, it means that the player is contributing less to the success of the team than the player thinks he's contributing. In other words, the player thinks he's a star and his team doesn't. That's not a McDermott-kind-of-guy.
  21. I hate "yes and it counts!" Makes no sense. Yes means "it went in," so of course it counts. Still, for Marv it's his signature call, and being known for a call is a cool thing. My favorite is "Shaw is right!" Don't hear that one very often.
  22. Josh said Knox is too big for DBs to handle and too fast for LBs to cover. We'll see.
  23. Thanks, John! Same to you and everyone here.
  24. That's okay. As I said, you're obviously someone who is thinking about this stuff and examining his own thoughts. For me, something happened one day after George Floyd, and the light went on. Suddenly, I could see what many, many people have said for decades but that I kept convincing myself wasn't really what's going on. I hope the light goes on for you. Thanks for chatting. I enjoyed it. I care, but I separate them. It's like when the Bills send me survives about the fan experience at the stadium. My answers are all the same: give me a comfortable seat with decent sightlines, good video replays and a lot of functional bathrooms to minimize the lines. I couldn't care less about the entertainment. I care deeply about racism and social justice. I can have both my feelings about football and social justice without finding it necessary to mix them.
  25. Well, I think you're wrong about this, but I also agree with some of it. I think, for example, and I'm sure you'd agree, that we have built a civil rights establishment in this country, and the civil rights establishment is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy like most bureaucracies. But that doesn't mean that the reason the establishment into existence didn't exist. It just means there's a problem with the bureaucracy. I mean, my blood boils every time I see Al Sharpton show up somewhere. The interesting thing to me about what's happening, and it's something that ought to give you at least a little comfort, is that a lot of white people like me are finally getting the message that we are the problem and we are the ones who have to fix it. The problem won't be solved by filling Congress with black people. It will be solved by white people talking to each other and agreeing that the society that we control really ought to be a free country to truly everyone. We all believe it; we just have been less than perfect in creating that free country. That's all.
×
×
  • Create New...