NFL Football

I hope Gravy isn't forced to spend too much time in ICU.

:)

Well, at least someone here still has a team in the playoffs.

;)

I like Bawlmer. Atlanta's okay. I can even tolerate San Fran. Just so long as the Pats don't win another.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I hope Gravy isn't forced to spend too much time in ICU.

:)

As I just got finished saying in the Golden Globes thread.....I was never more emotionally and physically drained after a football game than THAT ONE. They took us to the edge of sanity. I don't know what would have happened to this town if they lost that game. I was physically spent...just worn out...on the edge of the couch rocking back and forth.....I actually cried just a little bit after the field goal....tears of joy and years of frustration coming out. But it was more than just winning and advancing to the championship game, because Atlanta has been there before, and we've been to the Superbowl....just not under this Owner/General Manager/Coach/Quarterback regime (and God bless Arthur Blank, because the man who helped create Home Depot dresses in some of the butt-ugliest suits I have ever seen. Did anyone see his RED BLAZER JACKET yesterday on the sidelines hugging the coach?)

No, I was mostly just glad that Tony Gonzalez finally got a playoff win, and to a lesser extent Coach Mike Smith and Quarterback Matt Ryan. The Coach and Quarterback have many more years left in the league; Tony not so much.

Back to me....I physically lost my appetite yesterday. Even after we won, I could not shovel in the grub like I normally do. It was THAT nail-biting. The acid was in my stomach. I felt a wave of nauseau and despair roll over me. Still.....with 25 seconds left in the game, I told everyone: Seattle left too much time on the clock. It's happened that way several times this year. You just cannot leave Matt Ryan on the field with that much time left on the clock, even if "that much time" is just 25 seconds. With half a minute and two timeouts, Ryan knows how to stretch that field and get the most bang for his buck. Had that been Tony Romo with 25 seconds left, I probably would have felt like Seattle had it in the bag.

So now...on comes San Francisco. We're already a 3 point underdog at home, but that doesn't really bother me at all. That's a respectful spread, even if we're being declared the underdog at home. Truth is, I've heard all the same arguments about why Atlanta can't beat San Fran as I heard about Seattle, and we beat them. Prognostications and talking heads are a dime-a-dozen.. Even Nate Silver had picked the Seahawks to win the Superbowl (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/01/nate-silver-can-accurately-predict-election-not-super-bowl/60933/), and Vegas had Denver at 5-2 odds winning the Superbowl just 2 days ago. That's the NFL. Anything can happen and nothing is guaranteed. I respect the 49'ers, but I have to like our chances playing at home.

It was definitely the best NFL game I've seen in some time. Glad I didn't have a dawg in the fight or I might have experienced some of Gravy's trauma. Then again, I don't live and die by sports quite like I did in my younger days. And thank God for that.

No African-American NFL head coaches hired in 2013

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000127869/article/no-africanamerican-nfl-head-coaches-hired-in-2013

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/21570787/minority-candidates-shut-out-in-wave-of-coaching-hires

More whinging from intellectually dishonest, white liberals. If the game should more accurately reflect the country we live in , and be a statistical representation of our "diverse society", then shouldn't we have less black athletes? Currently the NFL players are about 70% black, yet only make up 12% of the general population.

And when there were 5 black head coaches in the NFL they were statistically over-represented at 15% of all head coaching positions.

Everyone says that talent alone should be the sole determining factor as to who plays the game, only because the basic assumption these days is that a black athlete is almost always superior to a white athlete ; no one wants to argue that a black athlete may not be talented or deserve their spot (look at what happened to Rush Limbaugh years ago when he argued that the NFL had a vested interest in making Donovan McNabb look good because they needed a black quarterback that they could trot out as a success story). Assuming that the black athletes truly are superior to the white ones, couldn't the same argument be made about white coaches and white general managers? Why does the argument go only one way but not apply in the reverse?

Currently, black coaches are slightly under-represented, filling 9.3% of all head coaching vacancies against an overall population representation of 12%. Currently black players are vastly, disproportionately over-represented, comprising 70% of all the playing positions, while only making up 12% of the population. I hope that as we begin to correct the 2.7% imbalance in the amount of coaches of color, we also correct an imbalance where black players are represented 6x as much as they are in the general population.

I would like to see more white and Asian players on the field (South Pacific Islanders don't count). Where are the Chinese quarterbacks? Where are the female players? Where are the gay and lesbian linebackers? Where are the transgendered? Where are the disabled? Where are the mentally challenged players ?

NFL, please address these glaring deficiencies! This is a top priority. Screw safety! Please make the game more inclusive and tolerant!!!!

Agreed, Gravy. But we live in a race bonkers, affirmative action society that is controlled, top to bottom, by the Left. These laments, therefore, are utterly predictable.

Now as to the "merits" of the Left's argument on this issue, I can only assume they believe that, because 70% of NFL football players are black, 70% of its head coaches should be black. That is idiotic, of course. Football playing talent and football coaching talent are not fungible. The former is primarily physical, while the latter is primarily intellectual. I mean, Deion Sanders may be the greatest cornerback of all time, but do you really want him coaching your team? Emmett Smith may be the greatest running back of all time, but the same deal. I could go on and on with these examples, but why really? I feel like I'm losing IQ points for even having to point this out.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Agreed, Gravy. But we live in a race bonkers, affirmative action society that is controlled, top to bottom, by the Left. These laments, therefore, are utterly predictable.

Now as to the "merits" of the Left's argument on this issue, I can only assume they believe that, because 70% of NFL football players are black, 70% of its head coaches should be black. That is idiotic, of course. Football playing talent and football coaching talent are not fungible. The former is primarily physical, while the latter is primarily intellectual. I mean, Deion Sanders may be the greatest cornerback of all time, but do you really want him coaching your team? Emmett Smith may be the greatest running back of all time, but the same deal. I could go on and on with these examples, but why really? I feel like I'm losing IQ points for even having to point this out.

Agreed. There ARE different skill sets for different positions within an organization, whether it's playing or coaching. But nobody wants to address the 800lb gorilla in the room: what if black players are better than white players and what if white coaches and general managers are better than black? We can't ask one question and not the other.

Lomas Brown may have been a great line backer for the Detroit Lions, but he's a piss-poor communicator on ESPN and a dumb ass. Mike Singletary was a great player in his day, but he was a terrible coach.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Agreed, Gravy. But we live in a race bonkers, affirmative action society that is controlled, top to bottom, by the Left. These laments, therefore, are utterly predictable.

Now as to the "merits" of the Left's argument on this issue, I can only assume they believe that, because 70% of NFL football players are black, 70% of its head coaches should be black. That is idiotic, of course. Football playing talent and football coaching talent are not fungible. The former is primarily physical, while the latter is primarily intellectual. I mean, Deion Sanders may be the greatest cornerback of all time, but do you really want him coaching your team? Emmett Smith may be the greatest running back of all time, but the same deal. I could go on and on with these examples, but why really? I feel like I'm losing IQ points for even having to point this out.

Agreed. There ARE different skill sets for different positions within an organization, whether it's playing or coaching. But nobody wants to address the 800lb gorilla in the room: what if black players are better than white players and what if white coaches and general managers are better than black? We can't ask one question and not the other.

Lomas Brown may have been a great line backer for the Detroit Lions, but he's a piss-poor communicator on ESPN and a dumb ass. Mike Singletary was a great player in his day, but he was a terrible coach.

Similarly, if we are to assume that black players dominate because they are superior, do we not also assume the same for white coaches? Are we to assume that colorblindness operates in the former scenario, but in the latter, racism is holding black coaches back? That does not hold water.

I hope Baltimore will beat up on New England.

I'm tired of seeing New England in the Superbowl:

They been in it 5 times in the past 11 years.

Give someone else a chance!

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Similarly, if we are to assume that black players dominate because they are superior, do we not also assume the same for white coaches? Are we to assume that colorblindness operates in the former scenario, but in the latter, racism is holding black coaches back? That does not hold water.

I remember watching a half-time or post-game show a few years ago on one of the big networks (I think it was CBS, and I think it was Shannon Sharpe), and one of the commentators was doing a recap of a Bengals game and started off by saying Carson Palmer's name and then adding: 'That's the whitest name I've every heard' or comments very similar to that. I chuckled a bit because it was true, but conversely, if anyone had dared say: "D'Qwell Jackson...that's the blackest name I've ever heard" that analyst would have been fired before the show was over (only if he were white; if he were black he'd be given a 30-day suspension at most).

The sad thing is, the "mainstream media" or "elite media" (even the sports media) has absolutely ZERO INTEREST in following up on any of these stories with hard hitting, penetrating questions. No one ever asks any follow up questions when a columnist plays the race card because the racism is assumed to be inherent, systemic and part of the establishment (every year it's lamented that the owners are all scary, evil white men) and that the racism is purely one way. I mean, the establishment media (of which I consider to ESPN, FOX Sports, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, etc...) all were caught flatfooted on this Manti Te'o hoax girlfriend story and it wasn't because they couldn't get to the truth, it's because they had no interest in doing so because it conflicted with the narrative they wanted to sell. And I think these East Coast effete liberal sports writers and producers have a single story they want to get across (which is, essentially, to use sports and the shows that cover sports) as a way to artificially lift up minority presence, then have the gall to turn around and run a documentary this Monday about Martin Luther King's "impact on sports" :roll:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Similarly, if we are to assume that black players dominate because they are superior, do we not also assume the same for white coaches? Are we to assume that colorblindness operates in the former scenario, but in the latter, racism is holding black coaches back? That does not hold water.

I remember watching a half-time or post-game show a few years ago on one of the big networks (I think it was CBS, and I think it was Shannon Sharpe), and one of the commentators was doing a recap of a Bengals game and started off by saying Carson Palmer's name and then adding: 'That's the whitest name I've every heard' or comments very similar to that. I chuckled a bit because it was true, but conversely, if anyone had dared say: "D'Qwell Jackson...that's the blackest name I've ever heard" that analyst would have been fired before the show was over (only if he were white; if he were black he'd be given a 30-day suspension at most).

The sad thing is, the "mainstream media" or "elite media" (even the sports media) has absolutely ZERO INTEREST in following up on any of these stories with hard hitting, penetrating questions. No one ever asks any follow up questions when a columnist plays the race card because the racism is assumed to be inherent, systemic and part of the establishment (every year it's lamented that the owners are all scary, evil white men) and that the racism is purely one way. I mean, the establishment media (of which I consider to ESPN, FOX Sports, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, etc...) all were caught flatfooted on this Manti Te'o hoax girlfriend story and it wasn't because they couldn't get to the truth, it's because they had no interest in doing so because it conflicted with the narrative they wanted to sell. And I think these East Coast effete liberal sports writers and producers have a single story they want to get across (which is, essentially, to use sports and the shows that cover sports) as a way to artificially lift up minority presence, then have the gall to turn around and run a documentary this Monday about Martin Luther King's "impact on sports" :roll:

Yeah, it's a joke. The double standard is what really gets me. Remember when Lovie Smith said, "We black folks got to git Obama's back! It's up to every African-American to git out and vote for Barack!"?

Now what if Bill Belichek went public with, "We white folks got to git Mitt's back! It's up to every white man to git out and vote for Mitt!"? Could you imagine the response? Not only would the sports media have gone incendiary, Belichek's comments would probably have been the lead story on the nightly news of CBS, NBC and ABC, and it would have been above the fold on the next day's NY Times. And naturally, of course, Belichek would have been fired in short order.

But nobody said a dam' thing to Lovie.

If you want to know who's running the country, first ascertain whom you are not allowed to criticize.

NFL just released a statement on the "disappointing" lack of diversity:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000128094/article/nfl-statement-on-rooney-rule-compliance-coachgm-hirings

Statement by NFL EVP of Human Resources Robert Gulliver on hiring of head coaches and general managers:

"While there has been full compliance with the interview requirements of the Rooney Rule and we wish the new head coaches and general managers much success, the hiring results this year have been unexpected and reflect a disappointing lack of diversity.

"The Rooney Rule has been a valuable tool in expanding diversity and inclusion in hiring practices, but there is more work to do, especially around increasing and strengthening the pipeline of diverse candidates for head coach and senior football executive positions. We have already started the process of developing a plan for additional steps that will better ensure more diversity and inclusion on a regular basis in our hiring results.

"We look forward to discussing these steps with our advisers to ensure that our employment, development and equal opportunity programs are both robust and successful."


Translation: too many white people.

My question then is: What is the right amount of white head coaches? Woody Paige on EPSN's AROUND THE HORN just suggested that a panel be set up of white and black people to study this "problem" and issue their findings, while Bomani Jones said that nothing short of "legal action" would probably work to correct this. :roll:

And why does the NFL only seem to worry about "diversity" when it's a black person out of a job? Their definition of diversity does not seem to include women, Asians or Jews. You never hear about the NFL wanting to open up job opportunities for women. Do they ever ask for a panel to study why more Jewish and Asian people don't apply to play sports? Maybe they are afraid of the answer.

Do we have to make everything about politics? It's fucking football.

Jack Wade wrote:

Do we have to make everything about politics? It's fucking football.

It is the NFL that has politicized football.

Gravy, it's just a matter of time before the NFL mandates quotas for "diverse" head coaches. I don't know how they will implement this, but at some point I expect that at least 15 percent of NFL head coaches will have to be black. That will mean, for some poor franchises, they will occasionally be forced to hire a black coach regardless of qualifications...or their lack.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Do we have to make everything about politics? It's fucking football.

It is the NFL that has politicized football.

Gravy, it's just a matter of time before the NFL mandates quotas for "diverse" head coaches. I don't know how they will implement this, but at some point I expect that at least 15 percent of NFL head coaches will have to be black. That will mean, for some poor franchises, they will occasionally be forced to hire a black coach regardless of qualifications...or their lack.

I agree. Strange thing is, in football it's the white athlete that is the minority, but I have yet to see one person in the league claim that there should be "set aside" positions for white athletes so that their numbers can better reflect the true demographic make-up of our country.

The NFL got all butt-hurt yesterday about the lack of "diversity" and "inclusion" in the new hirings, but they never come out and clarify exactly what the right amount of black coaches in the NFL should be. What is the minimum threshold? All a quota system would do would be to force a club to move much quicker in hiring a coach, any coach, that they want or think they may want rather than be the last club in the off-season who hasn't yet made a hire and is now forced to pick a black candidate because the NFL has maintained a minimum number quota system.

The "Rooney Rule" did nothing but force clubs to go through with a perfunctory, obligatory interview with a black candidate when the entire time the club knew they were going to choose someone else. It's patronizing to black candidates.

They're already talking about expanding the Rooney Rule to now include interviewing black candidates for Offensive Coordinator positions.

And after the quota system on coaches, the NFL will start applying pressure on some team to sell a percentage of their ownership (or maybe all of it) to a qualified "minority" buyer. But when I say "minority", I'm really only referring to black people, because Pakistani owners (like Shahid Khan of The Jacksonville Jaguars) and Arthur Blank (Jewish owner of The Atlanta Falcons) don't represent the sort of "diversity" and "inclusion" the NFL has in mind. Even Pakistani-born Khan hired a white general manager who in turn hired a white coach. Do you see anyone in the NFL bitching about Khan not being racially sensitive? No, because the target of all this ire, angst, and rage is meant to devalue and humiliate white, male owners. It's now a crime in this country to be white and male. You are the source of all the worlds ills. You exploit the common worker and are part of a patriarchal society that has waged a war on women and blacks (whom you enslave by luring them into multimillion dollar contracts in the NBA and NFL, which they then go promptly burn through and end up bankrupt 3-4 years after leaving the league).

Baseball had a minority owner years ago.....Marge "Ought To Be" Schott...and we all remember how well that worked out.

Now everybody is out of it, with Gravy's Falcons losing to San Francisco and my Patriots losing to Baltimore. Unless there are some closet 49ers or Ravens fans out there.

These playoff loses are driving me nuts because I know the clock on Tom Brady's playing career is winding down. Elite quarterbacks like him come once in a lifetime and I'm afraid the Patriots won't be good for a while when he ends up retiring. I've already seen a dominant team be destroyed by age (Celtics), money (Bruins), and egos (Red Sox). Boston sports is leaving their moment in the sun and it looks like things will return to the bad old times in a quick fashion.

New England and Atlanta not in the Superbowl. I am soooo happy! One is a cheating team, the other is a team of criminals and thugs!

Tubes wrote:

Now everybody is out of it, with Gravy's Falcons losing to San Francisco and my Patriots losing to Baltimore. Unless there are some closet 49ers or Ravens fans out there.

These playoff loses are driving me nuts because I know the clock on Tom Brady's playing career is winding down. Elite quarterbacks like him come once in a lifetime and I'm afraid the Patriots won't be good for a while when he ends up retiring. I've already seen a dominant team be destroyed by age (Celtics), money (Bruins), and egos (Red Sox). Boston sports is leaving their moment in the sun and it looks like things will return to the bad old times in a quick fashion.

Yeah, I've wondered about Brady. Most quarterbacks don't make it to 40, no? So he's only got, I would imagine, 4 seasons or less, in him before retiring. Not surprised that the Patriots lost; I picked them to lose to the Ravens. Somehow I just felt the Ravens wanted it more. I don't care what New England says, when you've been to the Superbowl 5 or 6 times in the last 12 years, it just doesn't feel as special as having never been or having not been in a long time. Winning gets to be routine and ordinary; mundane perhaps. When you've reached the level of success they have, it becomes more and more difficult not to become jaded.

Disappointed with the way the Falcons ended their season, but overall they made a lot of progress this year. They need more help from the run game and defense; I think they're only a playmaker or two away from getting into the Superbowl. Gonzalez will be hard to replace. I don't imagine Turner will be back.

And lastly, though I wish we'd won, I have to admit I'm somewhat glad it's all over. The razor's-edge games the Falcons played all year sort of wore a lot of the fans down. The games were becoming a physical liability for me. Too much stress and angst. Sometimes you just want your team to open up a huge lead and never look back; too often we opened up strong against opponents, let them back in the game, then had to fight our way back from behind to win it.

The Falcon receiver was absolutely mugged by the Niners linebacker on that 4th down play. A flagrant hold, or, if he was beyond five yards, a PI. Should've been called, but that still doesn't mean Atlanta would have been able to punch it in.

Pulling for the Ravens now. Since I abandoned the Cowboys in '96 (I'd been a die hard fan since '71), I really don't have an NFL team. I like the Ravens, Jets, Chiefs and Browns, but hardly live and die with them as I used to with the Cowboys.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver will begin sensitivity training and education immediately after the Super Bowl following his anti-gay remarks this week, then start volunteer work with at-risk homosexual youth nationwide.

Culliver is scheduled to begin working with "The Trevor Project," an organization that provides crisis and suicide intervention to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth, according to his public relations representative, Theodore Palmer.

"He's so passionate about youth and people being comfortable with who they are and accepted by all," Palmer said in a phone interview Saturday. "He's excited to learn. The plan is with The Trevor Project, and their concerns are that he is genuine about his words."

Palmer said Culliver will spend time volunteering at a crisis center in San Francisco.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130202/chris-culliver-49ers-sensitivity-training.ap/#ixzz2Jms0FwUg


The Death Camp of Tolerance continues to sweep across the nation. If you dare to voice an opinion that is counter to mainstream orthodoxy, you will be sent to "sensitivity training" and forced to create macaroni paintings of people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations living in peace and harmony with one another.

And by the way, Culliver not only isn't sincere about working with gay, lesbian, bisexual and at-risk youth, he should be nowhere near them.

Sensitivity training is bullshit but he's still an asshole.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver will begin sensitivity training and education immediately after the Super Bowl following his anti-gay remarks this week, then start volunteer work with at-risk homosexual youth nationwide.

Culliver is scheduled to begin working with "The Trevor Project," an organization that provides crisis and suicide intervention to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth, according to his public relations representative, Theodore Palmer.

"He's so passionate about youth and people being comfortable with who they are and accepted by all," Palmer said in a phone interview Saturday. "He's excited to learn. The plan is with The Trevor Project, and their concerns are that he is genuine about his words."

Palmer said Culliver will spend time volunteering at a crisis center in San Francisco.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130202/chris-culliver-49ers-sensitivity-training.ap/#ixzz2Jms0FwUg


The Death Camp of Tolerance continues to sweep across the nation. If you dare to voice an opinion that is counter to mainstream orthodoxy, you will be sent to "sensitivity training" and forced to create macaroni paintings of people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations living in peace and harmony with one another.

And by the way, Culliver not only isn't sincere about working with gay, lesbian, bisexual and at-risk youth, he should be nowhere near them.

And our death march to a one-party totalitarian state proceeds apace. I never in a million years thought I'd say this, but God I hate this country.

:roll:

Good thing he was talking about gays and not, I dunno, white people. If he had to take sensitivity training classes for that ... well, totalitarianism, I hate this country, etc.

Jack Wade wrote:

Good thing he was talking about gays and not, I dunno, white people. If he had to take sensitivity training classes for that ... well, totalitarianism, I hate this country, etc.

While I disagree with his overall opinion (in which he seemed unwilling to work in a professional manner alongside gay people), the more grevious sin being committed here is forcing him to go into a re-education program (I use the term "re-education" loosely, as it doesn't appear there was any education to begin with). Maybe if he'd answered the question differently the response would have been different. Who knows? But I saw this coming the moment he opened his mouth and this hit the media. It happens so often now that it has become cliched. And no one that says 'We ain't go no gays on the team; they gots to get on up out of here' is going to bang out the "apology" press release that the 49'ers claim Culliver wrote the next day. Clearly a PR flack wrote it, which means everything that Culliver is going to do and say with The Trevor Project is not something from his heart, but something being forced upon him by the 49'ers organization.

And no matter how poorly he handled Artie Lange's question, Culliver is entitled to his opinions and shouldn't be forced to go through this ridiculous brain-washing program in order to keep his job. It's not really a free country and an exercise of free speech if you have to involve yourself with causes and organizations that you don't believe in in order to keep your job.