KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The way the covered his play at the time was weird Ken. It may have been by collective chance that they almost all were getting it wrong, but it did not make sense to me. You may not agree with the conclusion of conspiracy but I have not seen any real explanation, ever.
He took his team to the NFC Championship game that season and the two before.  He was doing well...perhaps that's why he was getting a lot of attention.  There weren't that many black QBs at that point who garnered the same type of success in the NFL.  The media overrates plenty of players in sports all the time.  It seemed like a stupid thing to say, regardless.
This article illustrates the context of Rush's comments.

"There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback.

McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003.

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.

The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?

Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage.

In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period.

And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson.

In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is.
I understand his argument and I've read that transcript before (a couple times actually).  QB's get the credit in the NFL.  In fact, the offense largely gets the credit in football in general.  Look at past Heisman winners, Super Bowl MVP, etc etc.   Hmm, I wonder why Brad Johnson was never exalted.  Could it be he played on mediocre teams (save for one that beat my Raiders in the Super Bowl)?

Like I said, players are overrated in every sport.  Call him out for being overrated, fine.  No issue with that.  Calling out the media as having some special affinity for McNabb specifically because he is black?  That's what I take issue with.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6888|132 and Bush

Johnson played for a mediocre team except for winning the SuperBowl?.. that's kind of an important component here.

Did the media over rate MacNabb? On one hand you say they do it all the time (big deal), and on the other you feel that you have to tell me about his teams performance the prior two years.

You also said you don't think Rush is a racist "per se'". He just doesn't like this unexplained "black culture". He was specific in detailing why he believed what he did. This was no random Nappy headed remark.

It's not completely out of the question for the media to exaggerate the performance of a player because they are a minority in that position. Especially in the absence of any other real explanation. I'm personally not content with "oh well it happens all the time" excuse.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Kmarion wrote:

Johnson played for a mediocre team except for winning the SuperBowl?.. that's kind of an important component here.

Did the media over rate MacNabb? On one hand you say they do it all the time (big deal), and on the other you feel that you have to tell me about his teams performance the prior two years.

You also said you don't think Rush is a racist "per se'". He just doesn't like this unexplained "black culture". He was specific in detailing why he believed what he did. This was no random Nappy headed remark.

It's not completely out of the question for the media to exaggerate the performance of a player because they are a minority in that position. Especially in the absence of any other real explanation. I'm personally not content with "oh well it happens all the time" excuse.
"Per se" and "black culture" - Calling an average NFL football game a battle between Crips and Bloods without weapons.  Playing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro".  There's plenty of instances like this.  He may not be racist (Snerdley is black), but he sure feels the need to single out their race/culture just like other people in the media do all the time (while at the same time Rush complains about the focus on race in media and American society).

Brad Johnson has been on shitty teams.  He was an average quarterback on average teams with the exception of Tampa Bay that one year.  McNabb's teams have had success more than one time.  When teams do well the QB often gets the credit.  That's just how it is.  Dante Culpepper didn't have the media surrounding him, exalting him, because his teams weren't that great.  Whether or not the credit is deserved is beyond the point.
13rin
Member
+977|6766

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Do you understand the media in the US?
If you want to start another topic about media bias go right ahead.

As to your question, yes, the media is a for-profit institution.  They are biased towards concentrated capital (the 'establishment') and stories that sell, not black QBs in the NFL.  Oh wait, perhaps the media knew Obama would be elected in 2008 and were preemptively kowtowing to the future Obama Administration.  Yeah, that's the ticket!
I didn't start with the media bias, you did.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It's just as retarded as Rush claiming the media was putting McNabb on a pedestal because 'the media wanted to see a black QB succeed.  Rush can't make devisive statements regarding race and then claim people are playing the race card.  Well he can, but it makes him sound like a whiny douche (imagine that).
Yes, the media is a for-profit business model.  However, if you don't think breaking race barriers is important to the US populous and wouldn't sell papers -then no, you don't understand how media works.  Furthermore how is Rush trying to play the race card?  The others have.  See Kmarion's reply to my previous post.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6888|132 and Bush

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Johnson played for a mediocre team except for winning the SuperBowl?.. that's kind of an important component here.

Did the media over rate MacNabb? On one hand you say they do it all the time (big deal), and on the other you feel that you have to tell me about his teams performance the prior two years.

You also said you don't think Rush is a racist "per se'". He just doesn't like this unexplained "black culture". He was specific in detailing why he believed what he did. This was no random Nappy headed remark.

It's not completely out of the question for the media to exaggerate the performance of a player because they are a minority in that position. Especially in the absence of any other real explanation. I'm personally not content with "oh well it happens all the time" excuse.
"Per se" and "black culture" - Calling an average NFL football game a battle between Crips and Bloods without weapons.  Playing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro".  There's plenty of instances like this.  He may not be racist (Snerdley is black), but he sure feels the need to single out their race/culture just like other people in the media do all the time (while at the same time Rush complains about the focus on race in media and American society).

Brad Johnson has been on shitty teams.  He was an average quarterback on average teams with the exception of Tampa Bay that one year.  McNabb's teams have had success more than one time.  When teams do well the QB often gets the credit.  That's just how it is.  Dante Culpepper didn't have the media surrounding him, exalting him, because his teams weren't that great.  Whether or not the credit is deserved is beyond the point.
Do you know the history behind the the Barrack the magic negro song? It wasn't Rush that came up with the idea.. it was an Obama supporter. Rush just played a parody of the song. I actually presumed you knew this since you seemed to have at least some background knowledge with Rush. "Crips and Bloods without weapons", it also deserves to have context applied. This isn't a left/right thing with me Ken. It's the bullshit that the media does, pulling out one liners, not telling the entire story.

Assigning credit is the point. By your logic, the idea that the quarterback is naturally rewarded props to the success of a team, Johnson should have been praised as one of the greatest QB's of all time. Taking an otherwise "mediocre" team to the biggest game in the league, and winning. Calling the Bucs mediocre is being nice. At one point they were the losing-est team in all of professional sports. I was there, defense was all the talk. The "good enough" qb wasn't getting nearly the press that Brooks, Sapp, and Barber were getting.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

mikkel wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

mikkel wrote:

So you're saying that he should be entitled to owning a private NFL franchise for no other reason than the fact that he exists? That has nothing to do with free speech.
by the letter of the law ofc his free speech isnt being violated.  my god dude.  i am not going to play word games with you.  save that for lowing or whatever.
Word games? This has nothing to do with games. You people are complaining about a lack of free speech, but this is the quintessential example of the nature of free speech. You have the right to say what you want, and others have the right to disagree with it. If you want to moan about political orientation dictating decisions in this private franchise, then moan about that. To mention free speech is to fail completely in understanding what that means.
Blocking someone's ability to invest their private income as they see fit because of something they said is infringement of free speech. You are taking away the opportunity to make money because of something that was said...not simply disagreeing with what was said.

There is a distinct difference.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6855|Mountains of NC

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5687

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You know the media doesn't decide whether or not Campbells signs McNabb to endorsement deals, right?
are you just going to ask smart ass questions?

anyway...they feed off that crap.  ESPN props him up as the next best thing, so they jump all over it.
mikkel
Member
+383|6888

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

by the letter of the law ofc his free speech isnt being violated.  my god dude.  i am not going to play word games with you.  save that for lowing or whatever.
Word games? This has nothing to do with games. You people are complaining about a lack of free speech, but this is the quintessential example of the nature of free speech. You have the right to say what you want, and others have the right to disagree with it. If you want to moan about political orientation dictating decisions in this private franchise, then moan about that. To mention free speech is to fail completely in understanding what that means.
Blocking someone's ability to invest their private income as they see fit because of something they said is infringement of free speech. You are taking away the opportunity to make money because of something that was said...not simply disagreeing with what was said.

There is a distinct difference.
That would be an excellent argument if there was such a thing as a right to invest in any private property that you may wish to invest in. The two essential parts of free speech are that you're free to say what you want, and that you're free to face the consequences to what you say. Limbaugh is being subjected to the nature of free speech. It isn't being infringed upon. He was allowed to say what he did.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-10-17 03:48:30)

Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7009|Eastern PA
It was a market decision by a bunch of business owners. They decided that Rush's involvement would have impacted their bottom line and dropped him from the bid.

What's the problem?

I do recall a few years ago the Republicans threatening to remove the MLB's anti-trust exemption when George Soros wanted to buy the Washington Nationals.

EDIT: And strictly speaking the NFL isn't a free enterprise. Though it's a for-profit venture it is technically a cartel.

Last edited by Masques (2009-10-17 11:39:02)

nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5898|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)
Haven't read the whole thread

Apparently (from what I've heard) the group he was with came to him because they needed his money.
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6667|MN
I agree that the people that didn't want to have him as a part owner are allowed to speak their mind about it.  I have a problem with the people that lied about what Limbaugh supposedly said in the past.  I know he said something about McNabb, but they haven't found any proof of the other quotes unless I missed them somewhere.

If someone speaks their mind, it is ok.  If they lie when they are doing so, does that equal slander/libel?  Is Limbaugh able to sue them for it?
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5687
my problem was the players that said they would not play for that team yet defend drunk driving and wife beaters.....oh and animal killers.  thats my point.  nobody seems to want to address that.  black people sticking up for black people defending their actions and crying about second chances yet they have an issue with words...........idiots.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7003
Sharpy Sharpton is going to sue Rush if he doesn't apologize...  Al is so pathetic...
Why doesn't Al or Jesse ever pick a real issue that affects African Americans... ?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568 … 0000:b0:z5

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-10-18 03:29:09)

Love is the answer
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

Red Forman wrote:

my problem was the players that said they would not play for that team yet defend drunk driving and wife beaters.....oh and animal killers.  thats my point.  nobody seems to want to address that.  black people sticking up for black people defending their actions and crying about second chances yet they have an issue with words...........idiots.
More like naggers.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5687
basically.  its ok to embrace the gang thug culture and do stupid shit but god forbid a white person say something that was basically true.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

Red Forman wrote:

basically.  its ok to embrace the gang thug culture and do stupid shit but god forbid a white person say something that was basically true.
Racist.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6281|Truthistan

Macbeth wrote:

why do most of you got to get some personal?
Really? Say things that inflame to make yourself money and not expect blow back just because you want to venture out into another business.
Hey, he's pigeon holed himself and you are wondering way people aren't stepping forward to hold hands with the guy and sing cum-by-yah.

We have freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean there are not consequences for exercising that right. In end these guys are only as valuable as their ratings, they are in it to make money and its a business to them.


Anyway, any professional sports league would shy away for assocating themself with this guy... the last thing they want is his voice becoming the voice of their league. Just like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott



And I con't blame black players for speaking out against him... Rush is always ragging on blacks who stand up for their rights, inflaming and inciting hate against black leaders, and you think black players should fall to their knees and hug his legs like a racist Al Jolson movie. Please, just who is so thin skinned as to believe that crock? Perhaps Reverend Wright should purchase a team then we would never hear the end of it.


And Cybargs.. "naggers" really? grow the F up... loser. Some of the people who post here are the most disrespectful POS, must be your upbringing I suppose you don't know any better.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6936

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Red Forman wrote:


by the letter of the law ofc his free speech isnt being violated.  my god dude.  i am not going to play word games with you.  save that for lowing or whatever.
Word games? This has nothing to do with games. You people are complaining about a lack of free speech, but this is the quintessential example of the nature of free speech. You have the right to say what you want, and others have the right to disagree with it. If you want to moan about political orientation dictating decisions in this private franchise, then moan about that. To mention free speech is to fail completely in understanding what that means.
Blocking someone's ability to invest their private income as they see fit because of something they said is infringement of free speech. You are taking away the opportunity to make money because of something that was said...not simply disagreeing with what was said.

There is a distinct difference.
You don't seem to understand how free speech works. If I own a business, and go around saying I hate all Republicans (in an attempt to get off race for a minute) I shouldn't be surprised if Republicans take offence to that and stop using my business. I'm allowed to say it, but it doesn't mean there won't be consequences to my actions.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6281|Truthistan
I guess it must hurt to learn that your hero Rush is in fact not mainstream. Professional sports are mainstream. The Mainstream has rejected Rush. Wow that must sting, just a little.

Rush is fringe.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6977|Tampa Bay Florida
Look at the motives... who has more to win...
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:


Word games? This has nothing to do with games. You people are complaining about a lack of free speech, but this is the quintessential example of the nature of free speech. You have the right to say what you want, and others have the right to disagree with it. If you want to moan about political orientation dictating decisions in this private franchise, then moan about that. To mention free speech is to fail completely in understanding what that means.
Blocking someone's ability to invest their private income as they see fit because of something they said is infringement of free speech. You are taking away the opportunity to make money because of something that was said...not simply disagreeing with what was said.

There is a distinct difference.
You don't seem to understand how free speech works. If I own a business, and go around saying I hate all Republicans (in an attempt to get off race for a minute) I shouldn't be surprised if Republicans take offence to that and stop using my business. I'm allowed to say it, but it doesn't mean there won't be consequences to my actions.
I certainly do understand how free speech works.

He wasn't blocked because he's a racist (he's not). He was blocked because people don't agree with his political views.

He's not my hero by any stretch, Diesel. I just think the situation is unjust and completely hypocritical...just like Red has pointed out.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6281|Truthistan

FEOS wrote:

He's not my hero by any stretch, Diesel. I just think the situation is unjust and completely hypocritical...just like Red has pointed out.
Hero, I was just trying to have some fun. But sports is entertainment and its mainstream. You have to agree that the NFL and the other team owners have the right to decline associating themselves with Rush. Correct? Because I've seen other posts that basically say "when its your property you can basically say and do what you want including being an overt racist" Correct? So the NFL can do what it wants with its property. Correct?

Besides it comes down to money and business... Associating with Rush is all down side due to his bagage and very little upside.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FEOS wrote:

He's not my hero by any stretch, Diesel. I just think the situation is unjust and completely hypocritical...just like Red has pointed out.
Hero, I was just trying to have some fun. But sports is entertainment and its mainstream. You have to agree that the NFL and the other team owners have the right to decline associating themselves with Rush. Correct? Because I've seen other posts that basically say "when its your property you can basically say and do what you want including being an overt racist" Correct? So the NFL can do what it wants with its property. Correct?

Besides it comes down to money and business... Associating with Rush is all down side due to his bagage and very little upside.
Yes, they have the right to be complete hypocritical assholes.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6281|Truthistan

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FEOS wrote:

He's not my hero by any stretch, Diesel. I just think the situation is unjust and completely hypocritical...just like Red has pointed out.
Hero, I was just trying to have some fun. But sports is entertainment and its mainstream. You have to agree that the NFL and the other team owners have the right to decline associating themselves with Rush. Correct? Because I've seen other posts that basically say "when its your property you can basically say and do what you want including being an overt racist" Correct? So the NFL can do what it wants with its property. Correct?

Besides it comes down to money and business... Associating with Rush is all down side due to his bagage and very little upside.
Yes, they have the right to be complete hypocritical assholes.
I'm a little confused on who is being a hypocrit and why. Can you connect the dots for me?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard