2014 NFL Playoffs Thread

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

With Sherman, he did open the door for that stereotype with his outburst.

If I can reach into music for a reference here, a good example of how behavior influences impressions.

Doug Pinnick, of King's X fame, has worn dreads (among other styles), has been open about his pot use, is prone to ranting about various & sundry social topics, is rather clearly on the further left of the social spectrum ... In short, there's a whole lot about him I don't care for.

Yet at no point has the word "thug" ever been one that's come to my mind about him. ("Brain-damaged left-wing lunatic" yes, "thug" no). It's just not a vibe he gives off, even when he's pissed off about something.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

The Seahawks are something like 600% more likely to have defensive holding and DPI called on them outside of Seattle.

Got any evidence to back that up, or is this just more Forty-Whinering?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Forty-Whinering?

Did you make that up? Because if you did you need to trademark that and sell T-shirts outside of the Clink, you'll make a fortune.

[Bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug}
I see a guy who seems no worse than 50-50 to end up a convicted felon by the time he's 40.

Ha. Now that's funny, unless becoming filthy rich is a felony? Nevermind his Stanford degree in Communications and charitable foundation. I have no doubt that he'll be a media darling after next week and will legitimize his status as a superstar (media and on-field). The guy is thoughtful, insightful, and probably a little sensitive. That sensitivity probably makes him prone to overreact to slights, perceived or otherwise...hence the reaction towards Crabtree (and Bayless).

[Izulde]

You guys do realize Communications is a complete joke of an undergrad degree, right?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You guys do realize Communications is a complete joke of an undergrad degree, right?

Depends on the institution.

[Bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You guys do realize Communications is a complete joke of an undergrad degree, right?

In some cases, sure. That said, not everybody has the personality for it, right? I'm just saying, I've heard the guy interviewed locally many many times and in my opinion he's better than most at analysis and has a real understanding of the game.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You guys do realize Communications is a complete joke of an undergrad degree, right?

You realize it is still Stanford?

Just to get accepted there means he s pretty freaking smart.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You guys do realize Communications is a complete joke of an undergrad degree, right?

His odds of getting hired as a commentator after his playing days are done are exceedingly high.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Harvin hasn't been a game changer in years, and Wilson is basically Matt Schaub without a 100+ yard game from Lynch. The biggest factor in the Super Bowl will undoubtedly be whether the 'Hawks DB's are permitted to hold on every play.

Wow.

I'm hoping you meant the Harvin comment in the context of being injury-prone. Because when he's on the field, he changes the whole defensive focus and remains utterly electric with the ball in his hands.

You obviously know little about Wilson.

And then, ah yes, the bleating about defensive holding/PI. You honestly think that NFL refs "permit" the Seahawks' DBs to get away with illegal behavior more or less than other teams? Perhaps that'll balance out the pick-plays, eh?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Harvin hasn't been a game changer in years,

For your memory! Beginning of 2012 season was the best he had played prior to the injuries for the latter part of that year and 2013.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...43A0F23A54C7FD

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Bigsmooth

Ha. Now that's funny, unless becoming filthy rich is a felony? Nevermind his Stanford degree in Communications and charitable foundation. I have no doubt that he'll be a media darling after next week and will legitimize his status as a superstar (media and on-field). The guy is thoughtful, insightful, and probably a little sensitive. That sensitivity probably makes him prone to overreact to slights, perceived or otherwise...hence the reaction towards Crabtree (and Bayless).

Thoughtful and too sensitive? This guy?

To all You assholes complaining,

If you dint like it live in another dorm next year then because tradition is tradition and If your Homosexual don't celebrate the holidayy if its that big of a deal but im tired of yall complaining about a couple of hours of sleep yall are some assholes. Stop bitching and fuckin adapt I wake up that early everyday and I aint complaining so you guys really need to just shut the fuck up. Everyone else had fun so fuck the people who are complaining

Richard Sherman

I thought Rembert Browne at Grantland (a.k.a. a black guy who went to an Ivy school) had an interesting, if not fully-formed, article about how "He went to Stanford" alone isn't, and shouldn't, be his defense - Stanford Man: Richard Sherman and the Thug Athlete Narrative «

His status as a Cardinal has been juxtaposed with repugnant comments about his character. In this narrative, he can’t be a “thug” because he went to Stanford. But his Stanford-ness isn’t what magically makes him not a thug.

That’s a dangerous game, one that I used to play in the hopes of gaining respect while proving people wrong, about myself and about us.
...
Sherman could have turned into a very similar Sherman and made a very similar Sherman game-saving play and followed it up with a braggadocio-filled Sherman postgame interview, and not have gone to Stanford University.

And then what? Had he gone to the University of Miami, would he be just another link in the chain of thug athletes from the U? Probably. What if he went to a Historically Black College, like Morehouse or Howard? Or what about a junior college? Or what about Harvard?

All of these things would unfairly impact the thug narrative of Richard Sherman. And that’s unfortunate, because the “He went to Stanford” card was long used as a way to get people off his back. And while the intentions were good, and helped shift some of the conversation about him back in his favor, it shouldn’t be a primary argument when given the all-too-common task of proving someone isn’t a thug. If anything, it’s harmful logic. Because the next Richard Sherman may not have attended Stanford. So what then?

[jbergey22]

Maybe Sherman is a mad genius. This was his well designed plot to take some of the pressure off his teammates and put it all on him as this seems to be the biggest story of the week.

I think he acted poorly after the game, he explained himself, and apologized. Im good with that. Now if the 49ers or 49ers fans that havent moved on I wouldnt blame them either.

I just dont understand this entire "thug" situation. I think Incognito would fit that definition more than Sherman would.

[Sun Tzu]

Ah, yes. The classic dawgfan "I don't like your viewpoint, so I'll call you names" response. My Dad can beat up your Dad!

I saw a statistic at the end of the season. The Seahawks are something like 370% more likely per play to get called for either of those penalties (D-holding, DPI) outside of Seattle. I'm not concerned with you deciding not to believe it.

A guy runs his mouth for years. His teammates make numerous big plays in the biggest game of his life. His team has just won. His first thought? Make choking hand signals to the opposition, and then berate an opposing player on national TV while declaring himself the king of kings.

Yeah. lol. Sounds like a real winner.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Maybe Sherman is a mad genius. This was his well designed plot to take some of the pressure off his teammates and put it all on him as this seems to be the biggest story of the week.

I think he acted poorly after the game, he explained himself, and apologized. Im good with that. Now if the 49ers or 49ers fans that havent moved on I wouldnt blame them either.

I just dont understand this entire "thug" situation. I think Incognito would fit that definition more than Sherman would.

I think it has helped Manning a lot more. The story line would have been about whether his legacy as a great QB would be diminished with another loss. He hasn't had to answer that really.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You guys do realize Communications is a complete joke of an undergrad degree, right?

Put more diplomatically: not sure mocking a college degree is a good idea as likely yours would be considered inferior by many people as well.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

A guy runs his mouth for years. His teammates make numerous big plays in the biggest game of his life. His team has just won. His first thought? Make choking hand signals to the opposition, and then berate an opposing player on national TV while declaring himself the king of kings.

Yeah. lol. Sounds like a real winner.

How is him mocking Kapernick any different that Kapernick mocking Cam Newton the week before?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Ah, yes. The classic dawgfan "I don't like your viewpoint, so I'll call you names" response. My Dad can beat up your Dad!

I saw a statistic at the end of the season. The Seahawks are something like 370% more likely per play to get called for either of those penalties (D-holding, DPI) outside of Seattle. I'm not concerned with you deciding not to believe it.

A guy runs his mouth for years. His teammates make numerous big plays in the biggest game of his life. His team has just won. His first thought? Make choking hand signals to the opposition, and then berate an opposing player on national TV while declaring himself the king of kings.

Yeah. lol. Sounds like a real winner.

It dropped 230% on just this page.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

A guy runs his mouth for years. His teammates make numerous big plays in the biggest game of his life. His team has just won. His first thought? Make choking hand signals to the opposition, and then berate an opposing player on national TV while declaring himself the king of kings.

Yeah. lol. Sounds like a real winner.

I'm not just calling you out specifically but I've been wondering this about 49ers fans in general. I understand you are mad about what Sherman said and how he was classless or whatever you want to call it.

But how do you feel about your coach (the leader of your team) throwing a temper tantrum like a 2 year old everytime a call doesn't go his way? He comes running out on the field throwing his arms in the air, sometimes all the way out to the numbers. On top of that, you can clearly see him Mother F the officials. The call being right or wrong is not my contention here, it's about respect. He shows no respect just like many thing Sherman showed no respect with his comments.

So in the end is this behavior allowed because it's in the framework of the game? Is it allowed because it's acceptable to call an offical of the game a Mother F-er? Or is it acceptable because it's your team and you choose not to see it?

[Julio Riddols]

I thought I read that the Seattle DB's are essentially trained in the art of holding and interfering to the point where the refs have to decide how often to call it so the game doesn't turn into a flag fest. They basically dare refs to call something, and if that percentage (375% or 600%) is correct, I think the refs must subconsciously feel a lot better about calling it in someone else's house than they do in Seattle.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I saw a statistic at the end of the season. The Seahawks are something like 370% more likely per play to get called for either of those penalties (D-holding, DPI) outside of Seattle. I'm not concerned with you deciding not to believe it..

this stat means nothing unless we see how it compares to what percentage other teams get called for the same penalty away from home.

[Julio Riddols]

Then again, they were only called for DPI 6 times at home to 7 times on the road, and for defensive holding it was 5 at home and 6 on the road.

Source: Seattle Seahawks - 2013 - NFL Penalty Stats Tracker - List/Statistics/Data of NFL Penalties - 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Only one team in the top 6 DPI had fewer calls made against them on the road than at home.

Defensive holding was almost always called more for teams on the road than at home. Only 7 teams were called for it more at home.

[Lathum]

The whining from Niners fans is getting pretty old. You lost the game because your QB turned the ball over 3 times in the second half.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I thought I read that the Seattle DB's are essentially trained in the art of holding and interfering to the point where the refs have to decide how often to call it so the game doesn't turn into a flag fest. They basically dare refs to call something, and if that percentage (375% or 600%) is correct, I think the refs must subconsciously feel a lot better about calling it in someone else's house than they do in Seattle.

Whether or not I might like this development from a fan perspective, I can't blame Seattle for exploiting a known...er, psychological inefficiency?...if it works for them. In a game of inches, you take your inches where you can get them until the league takes a definitive stand. This isn't any different than the tactic of manhandling receivers at the line to disrupt timing routes from a few years ago.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Drake

Whether or not I might like this development from a fan perspective, I can't blame Seattle for exploiting a known...er, psychological inefficiency?...if it works for them. In a game of inches, you take your inches where you can get them until the league takes a definitive stand. This isn't any different than the tactic of manhandling receivers at the line to disrupt timing routes from a few years ago.

Agreed. People have been trying to take advantage of any little detail they can since the dawn of man, which ultimately is either accepted as the new norm or legislated into remission. Its the same as the 88 Bengals running the no huddle all game long or some stadiums pumping extra noise into the stadium, or coaches taping other teams practices.

[ColtCrazy]

I don't see how Seattle's strategy isn't any different from offensive holding. Isn't the old adage that you could call offensive holding on nearly every play if you wanted to?
The key to the SB may be how tightly the refs call the came. On one hand, you don't want it to be a flag fest, but on the other, they'll want to keep the defenses honest so the offenses can entertain. I'm guessing the NFL would rather have a 35-31 game than a 10-3 defensive struggle.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The whining from Niners fans is getting pretty old. You lost the game because your QB turned the ball over 3 times in the second half.

Talking about whether Richard Sherman is an ass or whether the Seattle defense gets away with a lot more is not whining, even if done by a 49ers fan.

The media outrage against Richard Sherman was not created by 49ers fans just as the defense of his behavior is not just done by Seahawks fans. Richard Shermans is who he is whether you like the 49ers or not.

And the Seattle defense debate is a legitimate debate since the team is now in the SuperBowl. It is an interesting discussion, but I think it's also a fair statement to say---they should keep doing what they're doing until a ref tells them to stop.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The whining from Niners fans is getting pretty old. You lost the game because your QB turned the ball over 3 times in the second half.

I would say poor play calling and time management by Harbaugh had more to do with it. Kap couldn't make that throw last year in the end zone against the ravens, why did they think he could do it this year against a better corner? All without taking a timeout to discuss it.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You guys do realize Communications is a complete joke of an undergrad degree, right?

Probably why he is actively working on a Masters degree.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I'm not just calling you out specifically but I've been wondering this about 49ers fans in general. I understand you are mad about what Sherman said and how he was classless or whatever you want to call it.

But how do you feel about your coach (the leader of your team) throwing a temper tantrum like a 2 year old everytime a call doesn't go his way? He comes running out on the field throwing his arms in the air, sometimes all the way out to the numbers. On top of that, you can clearly see him Mother F the officials. The call being right or wrong is not my contention here, it's about respect. He shows no respect just like many thing Sherman showed no respect with his comments.

So in the end is this behavior allowed because it's in the framework of the game? Is it allowed because it's acceptable to call an offical of the game a Mother F-er? Or is it acceptable because it's your team and you choose not to see it?

I've mentioned it before, but I can't stand it. Boldin's antics were something I never knew about until he played for the 49ers as well. It's a bummer, too because most 49er fans are coming off watching an utterly class act organization in the Giants win games the "right" way. Players like Buster Posey and Matt Cain are gentlemen the entire way through, and even Pablo Sandoval's antics are done in a respectful way. Kaepernick, Boldin and Harbaugh are annoying as hell on the field. What's nice is that OFF the field, they're total class acts - so it's easier to overlook the on-the-field aspect.

When all is said and done, I'm not rooting for my team any less because these guys are jerks on the field - I just wish they weren't jerks on the field.

Originally Posted by Lathum

The whining from Niners fans is getting pretty old. You lost the game because your QB turned the ball over 3 times in the second half.

And they turned it over twice. This was a game in which the officials were objectively bad. That's not conjecture; unbiased third party sources confirm the terribleness of the officiating in the game. And yet despite all that, the game came down to one play in the Seattle end zone, where one of the best defensive backs in all of football had to make a pretty incredible play to keep the 49ers from winning. Not only that, one incredibly questionable officiating call in the middle of the season cost the 49ers home field advantage. Also, this team lost the Superbowl by 7 yards last year, and was two muffed punts away from the Superbowl two years ago. Don't 49er fans have a right to bitch a little?

[Buccaneer]

I still do not understand why Sherman thinks it's mind-boggling that people are reacting negatively. Not many players, I don't think, have given the full choke sign at the end of a game and it may be rare that a player goes on a full rant in a post-game interview (which have not nor will not watch). It may be expected behavior from him but I don't think many of his peers would even do those things and Sherman is surprised that many would react negatively toward his psycho and poor sportmanship behavior? If he is intelligent, as some say he is, then he should put his behavior in context (e.g., others have performed the same play without going off) and realize that he went overboard in his reaction and interview. But it takes an added measure of intelligence to realize that and not keep playing the victim game, which so far he has shown he is not smart enough to do that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Don't 49er fans have a right to bitch a little?

Try being a Bengals fan. I can still vividly remember those two Super Bowl losses and we're in our third decade of no playoff victories. Enjoy your success.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You realize it is still Stanford?

Just to get accepted there means he s pretty freaking smart.

Or a very good football player.

[Solecismic]

Sherman's reaction is interesting. He publicly humiliated an opponent after his play led to a big victory. So there are a lot of 49ers fans, some of whom agree with Harbaugh's build-up of Crabtree and some of whom who don't but are very frustrated right now, who are really, really unhappy with Sherman (personally, I think Crabtree has all-pro talent, but a lack of consistency). He poked a very real bear here. He should have the maturity to understand the angry response.

I don't agree with his assessment of the t-word. The n-word is banished because there's no real way to use it (at least for a white person) without it being hate speech. But thug is not a replacement. Instead of denigrating a culture or a race, it calls out those who reject societal values through violence. A thug is someone who doesn't show respect for the law.

His game is physical. I don't think he goes too far, though. I wouldn't call him a thug. The question is whether thug is taking on a new meaning these days - whether it's now someone who disrespects values in general. In this case, Sherman definitely showed a lack of respect for his opponent, and I can understand that use of the word. That was a violation of sportsmanship, which is an important value in the world of sports. I don't think it's racial. I see Sherman's t-word argument as an inability to accept responsibility for his own words and actions.

As for the whole Stanford thing. If you want to run a major-college football program, you find a way to admit athletes who don't meet academic standards (his first SAT score, according to scout.com, was 990 - his retake was 1060 and his Wonderlic (unofficial third-hand sources) was average). There is no way in the world Sherman would have gone to Stanford without his football skills. This is something that Stanford, USC, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Duke and Vanderbilt must deal with if they want to market their brand through sports.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Or a very good football player.

BREAKING NEWS: The football players at Stanford are, on average, less academically qualified than the general student body. That is to say, they are less likely to be National Merit Scholars with perfect SAT scores who graduated from prestigious college-prep high schools.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Try being a Bengals fan. I can still vividly remember those two Super Bowl losses and we're in our third decade of no playoff victories. Enjoy your success.

It has been 20 years since the 49ers have won anything. I understand that there are plenty of teams out there with less success than the 49ers, but it's been 6 days since the team lost am incredibly close game. Cut the fan base some slack.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

It has been 20 years since the 49ers have won anything. I understand that there are plenty of teams out there with less success than the 49ers, but it's been 6 days since the team lost am incredibly close game. Cut the fan base some slack.

The problem is the fan base bitches constantly about officiating and has complained non stop about the antics of a player on the other team while their own coach and QB act like complete asses themselves.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I guess my point is that even if there are legitimate gripes about officiating, people are going to be pissed when it gets complained about.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Ah, yes. The classic dawgfan "I don't like your viewpoint, so I'll call you names" response. My Dad can beat up your Dad!

LOL - "classic dawgan" response? Uh huh. Show me this pattertn in my responses here.

In your specific case, yes, I'm calling you out for being the whiner that you have been since the end of the NFC Championship game. If that constitutes a "My dad can beat up your dad" type of post in your mind, then you must get offended on a regular basis on the interwebs.

I saw a statistic at the end of the season. The Seahawks are something like 370% more likely per play to get called for either of those penalties (D-holding, DPI) outside of Seattle. I'm not concerned with you deciding not to believe it.

And I don't give this "statistic" the slightest credence without any kind of supporting evidence. As others have pointed out, this claim appears to lack any credence, nor does it provide any kind of real value without comparing how the Seahawks fare in home DPI calls vs. road DPI calls against the rest of the league.

A guy runs his mouth for years. His teammates make numerous big plays in the biggest game of his life. His team has just won. His first thought? Make choking hand signals to the opposition, and then berate an opposing player on national TV while declaring himself the king of kings.

Yeah. lol. Sounds like a real winner.

Kind of like your classy coach? Keep on Forty-Whinering.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I still do not understand why Sherman thinks it's mind-boggling that people are reacting negatively. Not many players, I don't think, have given the full choke sign at the end of a game and it may be rare that a player goes on a full rant in a post-game interview (which have not nor will not watch). It may be expected behavior from him but I don't think many of his peers would even do those things and Sherman is surprised that many would react negatively toward his psycho and poor sportmanship behavior? If he is intelligent, as some say he is, then he should put his behavior in context (e.g., others have performed the same play without going off) and realize that he went overboard in his reaction and interview. But it takes an added measure of intelligence to realize that and not keep playing the victim game, which so far he has shown he is not smart enough to do that.

This x 150,000. If he's so damned smart, why can't he figure out the reason for the outcry?
I have stayed out of this for most of the week because it isn't going to change anyones mind. Beyond that, for me, it's not about ONE instance of horrible behavior. It's about repeated horrible behavior. Example:

hxxp://thebiglead.com/2013/12/02/richard-sherman-decked-kenny-stills-with-this-cheap-shot-in-the-end-zone/#sthash.9oIYmcDj.uxfs

As we can't use a certain word now without getting called racist, I'll just throw it out there that you likely won't ever find a Champ Bailey hit like that in his entire football career.

Or how about the one who taunted Tom Brady before and after the game. Yeah, the Seahawks beat the Patriots, in Seattle by one point. Brady threw for 395 yards and the Pats put up 475 yards on Sherman in his own stadium. But coming back and winning the game wasn't enough for Sherman, he had to get in Brady's face, tweet about said meeting and show how big of a jack ass he is after the game. Classy all the way.

Ok, so we know he's a horrible winner, I'm sure he handles losses well, right?

"We didn't project it to be this way," Sherman said after the game, per the 49ers' team website. "We expected to blow them out, but they got the benefit of a few calls tonight throughout the game, and that helps you especially on third down. We will see them again, and it will be a different result."

The 49errs had 2 first downs by penalties in the game, the Seahawks had 1, but that flipped the outcome, not Seattle having the lead and Thomas being wrong footed on the key 51 yard Frank Gore run to win the football game.


I could add more, but why bother? People find his behavior acceptable because it's so damned invigorating to have someone speak his mind. His apologies are worthless, he repeats this behavior time and time and time again. i'm sure he treats little old ladies and children terrific when he's off the field. I'm sure he's a smart, caring human being. He's also one who cannot control his emotions and someone I could live without watching week to week in the NFL. He hates squares like me and I hate anyone who acts like he does on the football field.

We're even.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by nol

BREAKING NEWS: The football players at Stanford are, on average, less academically qualified than the general student body. That is to say, they are less likely to be National Merit Scholars with perfect SAT scores who graduated from prestigious college-prep high schools.

Given that Sherman was academically successful, I would say he was qualified. Moreover, not all perfect SAT students are successful.

Also, I think the expensive opportunities those academic students had allowed them to achieve perfect scores. It is quite possible Sherman did not have access to the same resources the academic students had, but did have access to athletic opportunities that allowed him to achieve the same goal of getting into Stanford .

[rowech]

I can't believe you guys are still debating this.

[ColtCrazy]

Just wanted to agree with Solecismic's point. I grew up thinking Bill Laimbeer was a thug. The term never had anything to do with race.
That said, people are going to love or hate Sherman…there's no use in debating it. I'm sure his post game speech will be well listened to regardless of what the end result of the game is.

[nol]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Given that Sherman was academically successful, I would say he was qualified. Moreover, not all perfect SAT students are successful.

Also, I think the expensive opportunities those academic students had allowed them to achieve perfect scores. It is quite possible Sherman did not have access to the same resources the academic students had, but did have access to athletic opportunities that allowed him to achieve the same goal of getting into Stanford .

Hence my sarcastic response to those who think a football player coming from Compton who graduated 2nd in his class with a 1060 SAT score didn't do extraordinarily well given his circumstances and isn't up to Stanford's lofty standards.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think it's racial. .

For who? Anyone? How do you explain the blatantly racist reactions on twitter and such? It's not everyone, and nobody has claimed as much, but the denials of the racial components of this are just bewildering to me. I don't understand why people are so defensive and protective of this idea that this kind of thing doesn't exist.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

For who? Anyone? How do you explain the blatantly racist reactions on twitter and such? It's not everyone, and nobody has claimed as much, but the denials of the racial components of this are just bewildering to me. I don't understand why people are so defensive and protective of this idea that this kind of thing doesn't exist.

I'm not seeing your logic. Are we to excise words from the English language because there are jerks who use them negatively? Are we to assume that any criticism of Sherman is racist in nature?

I don't have a horse in this race. Of course racism exists - from both sides of the equation. All you can do is try and live your life treating people the way you want to be treated.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

For who? Anyone? How do you explain the blatantly racist reactions on twitter and such? It's not everyone, and nobody has claimed as much, but the denials of the racial components of this are just bewildering to me.

's okay, I'm as bewildered by the claims about there being a significant racial component to the disapproval of his behavior (and the general attitude it displayed).

If he'd given the world's most standard generic post-game interview & there was some enormous outburst of hate then there'd be reason to be more suspicious about racial motivations. But that didn't happen.

This wasn't about the color of his skin, it was about his demeanor, about how he presented himself.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Just wanted to agree with Solecismic's point. I grew up thinking Bill Laimbeer was a thug. The term never had anything to do with race.
That said, people are going to love or hate Sherman…there's no use in debating it. I'm sure his post game speech will be well listened to regardless of what the end result of the game is.

Great point. I grew up in metro detroit and loved Laimbeer. Just as Seahawk fans love Sherman. But don't be shocked when the rest of the country cannot stand your beloved loudmouth.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm not seeing your logic. Are we to excise words from the English language because there are jerks who use them negatively? Are we to assume that any criticism of Sherman is racist in nature?

I don't have a horse in this race. Of course racism exists - from both sides of the equation. All you can do is try and live your life treating people the way you want to be treated.

You're moving the target. I wasn't responding to a point that "we should excise words from the English language". I was responding to your point "I don't think it's racial". I disagree, and think while it's not racial for everyone, it is racial for many. I'm not even sure you disagree with that, so I'm not sure what the defensiveness about it is all about.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Just wanted to agree with Solecismic's point. I grew up thinking Bill Laimbeer was a thug. The term never had anything to do with race.

The fact that you personally don't use the word thug with racial hatred doesn't mean that nobody in America does. Nobody has argued that everybody who ever uses the word is a racist. Google nigger and thug. It's a thing. A very common, substantial, thing. Thug is used as a racial slur by people. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to say it. But it is silly to deny that thug isn't used in that context by people. What fascinates me is the motivation for the defensiveness. I'm not saying you're a racist. Nobody is. I'm saying other people are. And there's so much resistance to that.