General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBill Romanowski - Racist Or Misunderstood?
I can't believe all the comments at DailyMail covering for what this douchebag said after last night's game.
'You will never last a minute in the NFL with that attitude. The world doesn't revolve around you, boy!'
Lots of support for Bill, claiming that he meant Football is a man's game, and Cam was not acting like an adult. And since a "boy" is not an adult, that's precisely what Bill meant by his comment. Since deleted from Twitter of course, because that will make it go away.
I say he meant exactly what he tweeted. Especially by sticking that term in there at the end, following a comma, when he could easily have ended the sentence without it, or even used the term "baby" instead if he felt that is how Cam was acting. But "boy?" If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)The ratio of those supporting his comment to those who see it like I do, as clearly intentional and racist
The article even mentions his history, and that even prior teammates thought he was bigoted. Not enough to stop his defenders though. I guess when you're a famous football player, you can slip in racist terms like that and get away with it.
If race were important to NFL teams, the current racial makeup would be much different.
I don't believe NFL teams would keep 60-70% black rosters, then hold out against making them qbs for some arbitrary reasons. It's a money game. If you think teams and franchises would hold out on black qbs if not doing so would lead to greater success and more cash, I've got a few dozen bridges to sell you.
Kickers are nearly always white too. Not exactly a prestige pisition, if you ask me.
I think it's likely that Romanowski knew what people would think when he wrote that tweet.
randys1
(16,286 posts)The fact that the NFL has come along with society and profited accordingly doesnt change the clear racism that has existed in all level of sports.
Why the hell else did it take so long for Black QB's to happen, basic math and basic racism.
QB had to be the good looking white guy, always.
QB was the LEADER, leader cant be Black, not till recently.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Do you have some basis to explain why the NFL would exclude blacks from this one position? One that makes sense, given their clear lack of objection to having black players at a rate roughly 4.5 times their representation in society at large? The NFL hires result producers. Period. It's a pure merit system.
You're not giving me reason to believe your stance.
Do you think the white qb on the winning team yesterday is a paragon of beauty? Does anyone? His mother maybe?
Give me a break.
randys1
(16,286 posts)why were there no NFL Black QB's until relatively recently and so few?
Do you think Black people are less proficient at passing or being QB?
Do you think they are less capable leading teams? Most QB's rarely call their own plays, so what is it you think is the reason that for SO MANY years, decades even , there were no Black QB's?
Do you think they cant call their own plays, arent capable in that area?
linuxman
(2,337 posts)If there were ones who could handle it better, the money hungry NFL would have pounced. They did on cam Newton.
Some people are better at certain things than others. Swimming, powerlifting: white people. Basketball, sprint and distance racing? Black people. Football? Seems a mix based on position. I think it is entirely possible that different groups can excel at certain activities. Do you think millions of years of evolution in different environments and circumstances may have somehow caused people to develop deficiencies and advantages in certain areas? Of course. There's nothing wrong with that.
Let me ask you a simple question. Why are most kickers white? Is it also some sort of ivory tower position? Why pick on qbs?
Is there some sort of conspiracy holding white guys back from being champion marathoners or NBA forwards at the same rate as their black peers? Would such a thing make sense in a model that is capitalist in every last other aspect?
randys1
(16,286 posts)High School.
No, white people are NOT better at being QB than Black people
again
OY
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Not sure what you consider recently, but there have been black qbs going back to 1968. Not exactly progressive, but I don't think most people consider 48 years "recent".
A black qb won it for the 49ers in 88, as well. There have been several other starting qbs at the bowl since
Just saying, your theory that recent racial benevolence in a racist org receded in the last couple years and thus resulted in black qbs is silly. And wrong. Mostly wrong.
Or pretend you're right. Everyone everywhere is exactly as good at everything as everyone elsewhere. 
randys1
(16,286 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Options:
1. Black people are excluded from this position.
2. White people are simply better at it.
I mean, come on! I don't even know what to say.
randys1
(16,286 posts)1. They literally, demonstrably arent. You're on a computer with internet. Use it.
2. As we all know, all races and ethnicities are just as good at everything as the others. That's why the NBA and olympic swimmings are an exact cross section of American demographics.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And black people are biologically better at basketball? Really?
It's about access, which is due to racism. It didn't just happen. Read a little about access to swimming pools and racism. You also have a computer.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)I must have missed that.
Given how vastly whites outnumber blacks in this country, it is curious that the NBAs racial makeup is what it is. Whites certainly have better access to courts, coaching, and teaining. How does that reckon with your point? Is it possible certain groups excel at certain roles and activities?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But often do have basketball courts. So white kids statistically have more options for physical activity and play.
If there were more skating rinks and swimming pools available in black neighborhoods in our incredibly segregated and racist society, there would be more black hockey players and swimmers. People do what is available to them. No color of people are biologically better or worse at any activity than any other color of people.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)We'll never see a Nepalese top 10 ten marathon finisher.
They live at the highest altitudes of any humans and have excellent lung capacity, yet aren't physically built to prevail at the activity.
We will never again see a white sprinter bring home olympic gold.
We will never see a pygmy (an ethnic group, not a disability, mind you) play pro basketball, or 4eally any other sport.
You can pretend that everyone is exactly as capable in everything, but to do so is to be willfully and proudly ignorant of basic science and biology.
People are different all over. It's called diversity, and as much as it may sadden you, it means much more than skin color.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)People who are short or who live in a particular climate or elevation will be affected by that, but that isn't a black/white issue. The concept of "race" was created by society. It does not exist in a biological sense. There are no biological attributes like strength in one sport or another associated with it.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)East Asians are smaller than central Africans. South Americans are shorter than northern Europeans. Different areas of the earth have distinct, identifiable and seperate genetic variations which produce physiological and psychological differences. Race is used as a colloquial term to encompass those groups. I'm aware of the academic argument you're making about the term, but I think you know exactly what I mean, and are using a semantic argument to avoid what I'm talking about. Differences in our groups resulting from seperate evolutionary paths give us different assets and hinderances in certain areas. If you can't a knowledge that, I'm not sure I care to continue this anymore than I would if you were insisting water isn't wet.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Differences in ability in any sport, and certainly not to explain why white people would make better quarterbacks than black people.
Please tell me why you think white people make better quarterbacks and swimmers and black people make better runners and basketball players. I'm sure it would be fascinating.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)You'll forgive me if I don't believe you'll give credence to anything I put here. I'm done wasting my time. Your rebuttals have been little more than churched up "nuh-uhs". I'm less than ennthiusiastic about typing up an explanation only to get another. There is a whole world of data out there for you to peruse. You wont, and that's okay. 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Where would I find this information. I'm really curious why white people would biologically make better swimmers and quarterbacks.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)feel free to read further on your own. I'm not into hand-holding.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)1. This is just a theory, and at the end of that article, the researcher who is black says that part of the issue is that he and others who were black were "discouraged" from swimming growing up. They were not just discouraged. They were kept out of almost all swimming pools and beaches. Great article about the history of racism and swimming pools in the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/10/americas-swimming-pools-have-a-long-sad-racist-history/
2. Due to the history of slavery and racism, and associated rape, most black people in the US are part white, and a great number of white people in the US are part black. There is no real line separating the two races. We made that line for reasons other than biological differences (except aesthetic differences enough to differentiate people.)
3. For the study, they used data collected from various armies around the world and not just the US - measurements for uniforms. Physical development and growth is affected by more than just genetics. It is also affected by diet and nutrition and health care. I question the assumption that all physical growth differences they found were caused by genetics, especially as they used data from a number of countries and various countries have different racial backgrounds and also different access to health care and healthy, nutritious food.
4. And it still doesn't explain why there aren't more black quarterbacks. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1089725-why-african-american-qbs-are-systemically-trained-to-abandon-mechanics
You might be interested in a three-part video series on YouTube called Race: Power of an Illusion - particularly the first part of the first video. Also, this article: http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123
kwassa
(23,340 posts)What you are proposing is a form of eugenics, really.
you believe that that certain groups of people are biologically predisposed to winning certain type of athletic competitions. Nature over nurture.
Show us your science-based proof. Otherwise, you have nothing but your bias.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)The word you're looking for is "biology". Not as damning when used against me (much like your casual causation of racism), but hey, the important thing is that you managed to vilify me. Good work. You seized the moral highground. Bravo.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Otherwise, you owe the entire world apologies.
hyperbolic bs and baseless accusations and stick em' where the rest of your opinions came from.
Otherwise, pound sand. Pointing and yelling "Racist!" doesn't phase me when the accuser is using it to stifle discussion and has no clue what it even means.
Enjoy your night.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)So Black people are 'built' to play basketball, and white people are 'built' to.....swim. Is that it?
linuxman
(2,337 posts)But overall there is a certain inherent advantage for each group. Nothing is 100%, but I think most people recognize that certain groups of people excel at certain activities when compared to others. Not always, and never in totality, yet enough for there to be an observable impact. There is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. It's called diversity.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)But overall there is a certain inherent advantage for each group. Nothing is 100%, but I think most people recognize that certain groups of people excel at certain activities when compared to others. Not always, and never in totality, yet enough for there to be an observable impact. There is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. It's called diversity.
This is why I compare you to the eugenics movement.
Equal lack of science.
Unless you have the science to prove, which you don't, that certain groups are biologically predisposed to succeed in areas that other will be less likely to succeed in, you are a racist, among other things. All kinds of bigotry is involved in your assumptions.
This isn't a theory of diversity, it is a theory of racism.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)You win, I guess. I mean, the trump card has been played. Whatever can I do?
Ask yourself this: In a >70% white country with an indisputable race problem, how is it that ~13% of the population dominate a sport in which whites are also avid participants, have greater access to training, facilities, and coaching/tutoring, and both groups (according to you) have no innate advantages or disadvantages due to physiological differences? Is it a way to keep black men down like making most QBs white? Some conspiracy? They're just better. Tell me your theory.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and you don't have it, and won't find it, because it doesn't exist.
Here is the history of racism against blacks in the NFL who dreamed of becoming quarterbacks. Read it and get past some of your absurd racial prejudices.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/the-black-quarterback-s-long-road-to-glory-1.6449822
Eldridge Dickey was the first black quarterback selected in the first round by an AFL or NFL team, in 1968. But despite a strong showing in training camp, the Raiders moved him to wide receiver.
Gilliam beat out future Steelers Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw in 1974 to become the first black quarterback to start in the regular season after the 1970 NFL-AFL merger. But despite his 4-1-1 record, Gilliam received death threats and withstood racial epithets from Pittsburgh fans. He soon was benched in favor of the inconsistent Bradshaw, who in an interview years later said of Gilliam: "He gave me my job back. I didn't earn it back."
Change of position
"For so many guys in my era, that was just how it went," said Tony Dungy, 58, the first black NFL coach to win a Super Bowl. "They would say, 'Hey, you can play in the NFL but it's going to be a position change. Or you can go to Canada and play quarterback because the style of the game kind of fits what you do.' And that's what happened in the '70s and '80s."
Dungy made the switch as well, moving from quarterback to safety and winning a Super Bowl with the Steelers in 1978.
So did McDonald, who was a high school All-American playing quarterback and safety in Fresno, Calif. But he knew his scholarship to USC meant becoming a full-time defensive back.
"Not a lot of kids grew up believing they could be a quarterback," said McDonald, 48, a Super Bowl champion with the 49ers (1994) and six-time Pro Bowl safety.
He has no regrets about switching positions, but he had some doubts back then.
"Probably 60 percent of my mind wanted me to go play quarterback," said McDonald, the Jets' secondary coach. "But my goal and my dream -- being an NFL player -- pushed it the other way."
Almost 10 years earlier, Thurman made the same choice.
He played quarterback against Moon in Pop Warner from the age of 10 in Southern California. But for Thurman, 57, just playing football was more important. So he went to USC and played defensive back.
"When you're a kid, throwing the ball around and playing quarterback in the alley or on some kid's lawn, you knew at some point you had to stop," said Thurman, who is in his first season as the Jets defensive coordinator. "You weren't going to get to do it. It was disheartening."
Those attitudes weren't relegated to the quarterback position. For decades, NFL teams were unconvinced that blacks could play safety, middle linebacker or center -- positions where "you had to think," said Thurman.
"The hoops that we had to jump through, just to compete on the same level, it's kind of been forgotten," said the Jets defensive coordinator. "But when we begin to talk about it, you begin to feel some of those feelings you had back then. It didn't feel good."
You're not going to address my question, but I need to pour over your wall of text? No thanks.
brush
(53,784 posts)Every neighborhood has basketball courts. All one needs is a ball, meaning playing basketball is affordable to just about anyone.
It doesn't require an expensive pool to maintain, or grass soccer fields with markings to keep up, or gymnastic event apparatus to practice on that you'll find in more affluent neighborhoods.
Exposure is the key word.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Yet 13% of our population utterly dominates the other 70% in pro basketball representation, even though whites have better access to training, facilities, summer camps, tutoring, and coaching. Combined with the fact that there is racial prejudice, black pro players still vastly outnumber white ones. All things being equal, wouldn't the individual with better access to professional help stand a better chance, also considering that they outnumber the socially disadvantaged group by roughly 5/1? How do you account for the discrepancy?
brush
(53,784 posts)African Americans, mostly inner-city, dominate basketball because it cheap and readily available whereas athletes in more affluent areas have many more choices to pick from to concentrate their talents on.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)I'm not sure I agree that these alternate choices would be enough to account for the massive representation difference. This especially becomes a problem when viewed against low income areas here there were no such high class alternatives, yet the same patterns are seen.
"This especially becomes a problem when viewed against low income areas where there were no such high class alternatives . . ."
I don't get the above quote from your response. Of course there are no such high class alternatives.
That accounts for the excellence in the few choices available.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)I wasn't aware it was contest
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)was the QB. Underrated player.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)They laid a hellacious beating on Elway and the Broncos that year in the SB. Almost as bad as the one the Niners and Joe Cool/Jerry Rice put on them a year or two later.
1939
(1,683 posts)that is was the four white and one black offensive linemen of the Skins (the Hogs) that did the beat down and that Williams and and that rookie running back that gained over two hundred yards in the game were just along for the ride. The Skins won three Super Bowls over the course of a few years with three different quarterbacks (Theisman, Williams, Rypien) and three different running backs behind was was essentially the same offensive line. I cpould have made yardage with holes they used to open.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)in the NFL. They simply bulldozed anything and anyone in their path for years. I myself probably could have run for 100 yards behind those guys, at least back then. They could knock a D-line 8-10 yards off the line of scrimmage.
1939
(1,683 posts)The Skins spotted Denver ten points through some incredible mistakes and then proceeded to just tear them apart.
You would see Joe Jacoby on the left of the hole and Russ Grimm on the right of the hole and ten yards of open field in between them. Jacoby was an undrafted free agent that they picked up.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I am reliving that game.. !!!!
My heart is going a mile a minute !!!!!!!!
RIGGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Counter tre......
GOOD NIGHT!!!!!!!!!
1939
(1,683 posts)Riggo was the Miami SB
Timmy Smith? (I forget) was the Denver SB. He set an SB record for yardage by a running back in that game and never did crap before or since.
Ernest Byner, a journeyman, was the Buffalo SB.
The Hogs won three super bowls with three different quarterbacks and three different running backs.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)But thanks for refreshing my addled brain..
You're right..Timmy Smith for WAS... 22 carries, 204 yards 2 touchdowns..
I'd forgotten all about him..
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Jeff Bostic Russ Grimm Mark May, Joe Jacoby and George Starke,
And the ole 'counter tre'
And RIGGO !!!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Maybe the biggest. I don't know.
But I watched it.. nda dwas ghoing nuts
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I didn't really pay much attention to football at that age (I was 8), I'll have to check youtube, see what's there. He did have some interesting comments in a couple articles I read. He talked about how Joe Gibbs was the only NFL coach to scout him as a QB despite finishing 4th in the Heisman race. Gibbs said he had perfect mechanics and a great football mind.
Williams also had some prophetic words regarding black QBs and the NFL, drawing a link between the types of QB the bigger colleges recruited and put into passing roles and how that would put more black QBs in the NFL. Until pretty recently, black qbs were more liekly to be treated more as an extra running back that could occasionally throw when their running ability opened things up.
The college game has evolved in such a way now that qbs dubbed "athlete" or "dual threat" are running more offenses that require a high level of passing ability too. It's giving more black athletes opportunities to shine throwing the ball that weren't there before, and maybe causing coaches to coach up some of their athletic qbs to be better passers.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)it was Doug Williams and Washington won.
I watched the fucking game
A game for the ages....
linuxman
(2,337 posts)No reason for an attitude.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)But, will hold my tongue..
You have more patience than I do.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)traditional pro style offenses.
The pro game has a formula. Run the ball, play defense and have a drop back, stand in the pocket, QB.
There are few exceptions to this formula.
As coordinators and coaches get younger and get away from the traditional formula, there will more black QBs who run the spread style offenses similar to what Cam ran in college and Carolina runs in the pros.
There was, 20-30 years ago, thinking that blacks couldn't run the offenses because they weren't mentally capable. That stereotype has been blown up with Doug Williams, Warren Moon, Steve McNair, Dante Culpepper...the NFL just hasn't evolved with the college game
pangaia
(24,324 posts)brush
(53,784 posts)Kickers come from mostly soccer backgrounds.
Soccer, until relatively recently has not been a sport that AAs have been drawn to.
With more AAs being exposed to soccer there will be more becoming kickers in high school, colleges and then NFL teams.
There you have it.
Also, the kicker is not a glamour/face-of-the-franchise position so there won't be the decades-long resistance that stopped black players from becoming QBs in the NFL.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)You could make the point that certain groups in certain areas of the globe have developed physical characteristics that favor a certain sport. But you can't make that kind of generalization in this country because we are all mixtures of some sort. On my father's side, my genetics come from all over Europe. Who even knows on my mother's since they are from the American South. I am culturally white, but my genes are from no particular place that would dictate my athletic talent. I AM a good athlete, but my sporting preference is largely dictated by what I was exposed to in my white culture early on. Takes a LONG time to get good, so most athletes start very young.
There are CULTURAL differences. Why are most skiers white? Historically, whites have done it more. They teach their kids. It is an expensive sport, so finances and access play into it too. But I don't think that whites are genetically superior.
Redshirting. Kids who are slightly older than their peers are perceived by coaches as being more talented athletically. As a result of the early attention and training, they tend to be much better later down the line. But it was just the erroneous PERCEPTION of talent that gave them the edge. So why would racial stereotypes be any different?
And kickers are white because most come from a soccer background. You going to argue that EA are better at soccer because of some racial advantage too And most who make the jump to the elite level get extra, expensive private coaching along the line since it is not coached much in high school. Cultural and economic differences, not racial.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)The NFL is much less to blame than high school or college coaching imo, though it's not like old white billionaires and coaches are somehow immune to implicit biases.
Also, what the heck would evolution have to do with throwing a football?
trof
(54,256 posts)You better believe that if there was a Viet Namese QB who could run and throw he'd (or SHE?) would be right in there.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)The NFL is a cash machine. If anyone really thinks they'd turn down a better player in the interest of preserving some sort of racial rules in this day and age...well they're deluded beyond all help.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)How fucking clueless are you? Why did it take 50 or 60 years for Major League Baseball to allow blacks into the big leagues? They certainly had the skill sets equal to if not better than their white counterparts at the time. If talent was the ultimate determinate, why did it take so long? Why did Jackie Robinson get death threats? Why did it take until the 60s when a college coach gambled his career and fielded an all black team which defeated a squad coached by the mighty Adolph Rupp to win the NCAA championship.
Give me a fucking break! Sports was the one arena where the supposed merit system should have worked and you know what.....for a long time it didn't. And when you post the shit you are posting, it shows two things. You're either young or ignorant about the role race has played in sports. And that you are not a person of color who has watched racial prejudice trump athletic ability and merit for a long, long time in this country
linuxman
(2,337 posts)I would never dispute it otherwise.
You seem to have trouble comprehending what I wrote here. I'd explain it, but you'd probably misunderstand that too.
The NFL is now merit based. Prove to me that kickers and QBs are mostly white due to racism and not due to the statistical likelihood based on national ethnic composition.
1939
(1,683 posts)Once the barriers had been broken (all teams by 1960), the number of black baseball players in MLB shot up exponentially as the merit system began to work. Then it began dropping as more and more Caribbean, Central American, and Venezuelan players (of various racial mixtures) came into the game and the number of black players in MLB born in the US plummeted.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)Glad you brought it up though. Currently there are 5 black coaches in the NFL. That is over 15% of the coaches. Seeing as to how that exceeds the national makeup for blacks as a whole, looks like they are right on target!
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)Offenses aren't like those in college. The NFL formula is built around drop back QBs who read defenses. The spread style or non traditional offenses in college don't use that sort of player.
RG 3, tremendous talent, can't play in a standard offense. Joe Montana couldn't run a spread. As the pro game evolves, with younger coordinators, we'll see more of the "less traditional" QBs becoming the norm.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The NFL actually had to institute the "Rooney Rule" to make sure that at least one Black candidate gets interviewed for each coaching vacancy. And to this day, a lot of those interviews are as perfunctory as the ones I go on. 
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)He's been in the league five years already.
That's what a Boston College education gets you......
JanMichael
(24,890 posts)he got some shit for it but not as much as newton.
it is an obnoxious event so i cannot see the sound and fury over newton acting upset. they all do it to one degree or another.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
karadax
(284 posts)I'm not going to berate a man for saying boy instead of kid.
SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And FYI I said the same thing about Payton Manning when he flounced off the field in a snit after losing to the Saints a few years ago.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Panthers fan here, but Cam is being a whiny little brat.
He should be better than this.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)that just about killed Brett Favre in the NFC Championship against the Vikings, he had something to bitch about. That Saints team engaged in deliberate headhunting with the express purpose of injuring opposing players. Gregg Williams is a shitheel.
Floridanow
(74 posts)Marcus Allen and Jerry Rice are probably Romanowski's best friend and they his. Anyone who ever watched the guy know that he is simply a live wire period.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,192 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I saw someone defending himself as not being antisemitic the other day because he had Jewish friends. Was he? I have no clue. But I do know that having individual friends of a given persuasion does NOT mean that you're not bigoted against the group they belong to in general.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Please.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)in the league??
** crickets **
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Always was. Though I don't have a lot of time for Cam Newton's egomania. At least he's a very good quarterback, which is volumes more than can be said for that asshat d-bag Johnny Manziel. And despite his braggadocio, I'd like to remind Mr Newton that ten years ago Daunte Culpepper did all the things Newton does now before he tore up his knee and lost his mobility.
But I'll stick with our QB - Teddy Bridgewater, who is a class act in every way.
roscoeroscoe
(1,370 posts)Romanowski is a long time a-hole, with that incident where he spit in the face of...who? I can't remember, but jeez what an asshat.
Mendocino
(7,495 posts)He also had incidents with Larry Centers, Bryan Cox and Eddie George, all African-American. Plus Tony Gonzalez who is multi-racial.
He punched teammate Marcus Williams in the face breaking his eye orbit which forced him (Williams) to retire. Williams is also African-American.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's what I would pick.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Mendocino
(7,495 posts)He has a history.
spanone
(135,841 posts)
one_voice
(20,043 posts)racked up fines for violent offenses when he played. And has a questionable history when it comes to race. He knew what the hell he was saying.
Anyone that lives in America and claims not to know the history of calling black men boys isn't being honest, imo.
Initech
(100,079 posts)Unless he was wearing a KKK robe while saying that or saying racial slurs, it's hard to know if he really is a racist or not. For the most part calling someone "boy" is usually a meaningless southern phrase. Really he is a douchebag though for saying that, but to find racist context into this is really reading too much into it. The outrage machine needs to take a chill pill.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)He's been refered to as racist in the past in addition to being a violent maniac as a player.
Johonny
(20,851 posts)sir pball
(4,743 posts)He damn well knew what he meant by that and it disgusts me.
On the other hand, if he had literally just /s/boy/kid - "The world doesn't revolve around you, kid!" I'd have been on 125% Shit, I'm a Pats guy and Tom can be a sore loser, ditto Peyt and all the rest of them. Call 'em out, but damn, man..
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)That would presumably include him. Maybe he just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
