Toggle sidebar

OT: 2019 Football Thread: Part II – Free Agency and The Draft

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
smoneil said:
The New York Giants, taking regular season and playoffs into account, have played 1,370 games. A black quarterback started 2 of them. That appalling number is part of the history of racism in the game. The disconnect, I think, goes back to the point someone made earlier between Racism (note the capital R) and bias (or lower-case "r" racism). The latter, particularly in this country, is borderline universal. Frankly, I tend doubt people's motivations when they insist that they "don't have a racist bone in their body" or "don't see color" or yes, that we "don't need to talk about this in 2019."

In order to make any real progress on institutional racism, we need to address these often unconscious racist biases. You see what I wrote above as a "veiled accusation" based on what I "want to be true." I don't see what's all that controversial about what I said: That I can see how a 67 year old GM in a league with a long-standing history of internalized racism ESPECIALLY at that position, might have made an instinctual decision that was to some degree inflected by his internalized biases about race. Frankly, such biases might be part of the REASON for his incompetence.
Click to expand...
I see alot of 'might' in what you wrote. You also assume everyone who denies that they aren't racist, are racist? What should their response be when accused? Or is it that no one should ever be accused in the first place if they're doing business right?

People being racist against minority QB's in the 80's and 90's is not up for discussion, it was a given. Everyone would pretty much agree with that. The Giants might actually continue with that backwards and destructive thought process (disagree but cannot prove it), but the method you are using to arrive at that conclusion in comparing them to other teams that had reasons to change QB's, is weak and unfair and is set to fit your predetermined outcome that they are racist and biased against black QB's.
 
romba said:
I see alot of 'might' in what you wrote. You also assume everyone who denies that they aren't racist, are racist? What should their response be when accused? Or is it that no one should ever be accused in the first place if they're doing business right?

People being racist against minority QB's in the 80's and 90's is not up for discussion, it was a given. Everyone would pretty much agree with that. The Giants might actually continue with that backwards and destructive thought process (disagree but cannot prove it), but the method you are using to arrive at that conclusion in comparing them to other teams that had reasons to change QB's, is weak and unfair and is set to fit your predetermined outcome that they are racist and biased against black QB's.
Click to expand...


What I'm saying is that most of the day-to-day impact of racism isn't connected to the kind of overt actions that most people think of when they hear the term. Racial biases get pointed out as being racist--the person with those racial biases aggressively defends him/herself as "not racist at all" (imagining that they are being accused of overt racism)--and the biases continue or are ignored as something "not worth talking about." If people gave half as much effort at reflecting on where/why some of their biases exist as they give to aggressively trying to prove that they aren't racist in any way shape or form, we'd make a lot of progress on this issue. As Avenue Q so bluntly put it--everybody is a little bit racist. It isn't a crime--it's just the result of the kinds of ignorance we all have regarding other cultures. Whether someone denies being racist in any way or not--they have some biases born out of race. It's the fact that they get defensive rather than reflective that concerns me.

I've said this a few different ways at this point, though, and I'm not looking to derail the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
smoneil said:
What I'm saying is that most of the day-to-day impact of racism isn't connected to the kind of overt actions that most people think of when they hear the term. Racial biases get pointed out as being racist--the person with those racial biases aggressively defends him/herself as "not racist at all" (imagining that they are being accused of overt racism)--and the biases continue or are ignored as something "not worth talking about." If people gave half as much effort at reflecting on where/why some of their biases exist as they give to aggressively trying to prove that they aren't racist in any way shape or form, we'd make a lot of progress on this issue. As Avenue Q so bluntly put it--everybody is a little bit racist. It isn't a crime--it's just the result of the kinds of ignorance we all have regarding other cultures. Whether someone denies being racist in any way or not--they have some biases born out of race. It's the fact that they get defensive rather than reflective that concerns me.

I've said this a few different ways at this point, though, and I'm not looking to derail the thread.
Click to expand...
To be clear racial bias, in my mind, is racism. But I get that its not overt and gives people 'plausible deniability'. I have plenty of ppl like that in my life. Without attacking them I can generally have an extended convo and their answers will conclusively point to this inherrent bias without a logical explanation. At that point the biased individual tends to throw up their hands 'whatdaya want from me? (To be unbiased maybe? Or at least to be aware of your bias)' and its pointless to push.

I'm not denying what you say is true, but it's difficult to accuse people of it without actually speaking to them 1 on 1 or having a questionable quote/statement. In the Giant's case, past history and all, I just disagree on the conclusiveness with which you assessed their bias, that' all.
 
Bob Richards said:
and choose the coach lol
Click to expand...

Choose the coach that he now has a rift with and won over ownership to get him fired? Not sure Macc was the guy who was in on Gase then. Sounds like Chris Johnson made that decision if you asked me.

Can't believe anything that gets said by the team either, because the refuted the issue with Gase and Macc this weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Richards
Bob Richards said:
and choose the coach lol
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the killer for me. especially since he hired a coach no one likes.

And, wouldn't go near McCarthy because he'd want too much power. Only to get done in by ADAM GASE.

(although i've got mixed feelings on McCarthy, but regardless)
 
There was all sorts of speculation that there was a big rift between Gase and Mac. My guess is that ownership wasn't happy that developed so quickly, and decided that they had more faith in Gase than Mac and said "let's put this to bed before it gets worse." Of course the optics look bad, because they're the Jets and they do everything stupidly, but Mac needed to go and I guess this is fine.

Or, maybe ownership was going to give Mac this offseason--draft and free agency--to impress them. He didn't impress them and they said enough is enough. Would also explain why they were rumored (although these rumors were disputed) to be heavily involved in the coaching search and needing to sign off on the staff. Maybe they thought that there was a very real chance Mac wouldn't last until the season so they wanted to make sure they were good with whatever coach they brought in.

Who knows. Jets.
 
JimmyG89 said:
Choose the coach that he now has a rift with and won over ownership to get him fired? Not sure Macc was the guy who was in on Gase then. Sounds like Chris Johnson made that decision if you asked me.

Can't believe anything that gets said by the team either, because the refuted the issue with Gase and Macc this weekend.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Seeing how this has now played out makes me think Gase was an ownership hire because they were sending Mac out skating on extremely thin ice.
 
JimmyG89 said:
Choose the coach that he now has a rift with and won over ownership to get him fired? Not sure Macc was the guy who was in on Gase then. Sounds like Chris Johnson made that decision if you asked me.

Can't believe anything that gets said by the team either, because the refuted the issue with Gase and Macc this weekend.
Click to expand...

Game of Thrones has now really jumped the shark
 
duhmetreE said:


Makes sense in that regard... but why wasn't he hired with Gase?
Click to expand...

If they can pull him in and do it quickly, that really helps to change the optics a bit. Would make it appear that they didn't just blindly fire Mac, but at least had some sort of potential plan in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximus
I'm fine with firing the GM at almost any time. Most scouting staffs get overhauled once the draft ends. You keep that intel, even if you don't fully trust it because getting guys in there and having their reports ready isn't the easiest thing in the world. GM would have to have been fired way before the senior bowl and combine.

Have to see the full story. No clue if the only issue was due to the rift with the coach or if there was something we don't know about yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
Boris Zubov said:
Disagree. Why would you let him run your draft if you planned on firing him?
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is what the Knicks did with Phil. Any time an organization does the same thing as the Knicks there is something seriously wrong with it.

And I wanted Mac gone a long time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom