Kelly the Dog

Scientific studies with real researchers from solid academia doing actual work with real numbers from documented cases are not good, versus Boyst62 random opinion with no research and no academia and no work and no numbers and no documents. Got it.

My bad. When I saw yours was from a link with Duke.edu I thought it was different and didn't read through. The welcome onewas working. There seems to be a bunch of different articles on the topic.

I posted this in another thread after someone brought up Matt Barkley, but it should go here... A lot of guys here don't want to hear this but Matt Barkley is the perfect comparison to Nathan Peterman coming out of college. Has 90% of what you want out of your quarterback except he has a rag arm, and you cannot compete in the NFL with the rag arm. Barkley had the anticipation and accuracy and quick release and all the experience and leadership. I wouldn't have drafted him in any round because he couldn't make all the throws. If Peterman's is a good amount stronger than Barkley he has a chance. But if it's closer to Barkley than not he won't succeed.

A lot of guys here don't want to hear this but Matt Barkley is the perfect comparison to Nathan Peterman coming out of college. Has 90% of what you want out of your quarterback except he has a rag arm, and you cannot compete in the NFL with the rag arm. Barkley had the anticipation and accuracy and quick release and all the experience and leadership. I wouldn't have drafted him in any round because he couldn't make all the throws. If Peterman's is a good amount stronger than Barkley he has a chance. But if it's closer to Barkley than not he won't succeed.

There were a bunch of different articles and links. This was in one of the links I posted but it is just the abstract to the study. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v94y2004i4p991-1013.html This was another... http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(15)00079-3/abstract

That wasn't the study I linked.

He's talking about wanting a player the Texans were willing to give up a #2 pick not to keep and pay him, as well as the Brown willing to buy a second round pick for $10m and just forget about him. The idea was always just to cut him. Not sure why they even played him and then cut him.

Well that would make sense to KellyTough. If he's playing, he is sucking, but if he is not playing he is not sucking and couldn't be sucking.

You mean if we disregard the prickly fact that he is !@#$ing terrible?

You might. A racist might have different reasons. Plus it wasn't only jobs. The study also showed that people with black sounding names were lesss likely to receive responses from the government when requesting information. Is that cultural familiarity?

Wrong again. Links were posted before you responded. But it doesn't matter. The fact is, those are facts.

So published studies in scientific journals and from the University of Chicago are not good enough for you? And all I did was click on the first two entries in a list of numerous ones.

Read the links, genius.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-sounding-names-study_us_561697a5e4b0dbb8000d687f http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124232

Then why is it when a candidate Human Resources people have never met named Rashida or Kenisha is far, far less likely to get interviewed or the job than the exact same candidate named Barb or Jane?

That's not necessarily true. The jury was black. You would not believe the percentage of the black population that believed he was innocent and that was because so many black people felt or knew other blacks who were framed by white cops or justice system. Perceived or otherwise. It was half because of wealth and half because the jury was willing to believe he was framed despite the fact he obviously wasnt

So they can take the 2018 equivalent of Hackensack?

J-E-T-S! MESS! MESS! MESS!

The problem with Nate and the problem with not throwing the deep ball and more importantly the deep out WITH sufficient oomph is twofold: 1) Those passes that were completions in college are incompletions or interceptions in the NFL. And 2) Without the threat to throw those passes hard enough, every defensive back on the field can cheat up, and much, much more easily take away those 10-15 yard completions you're talking about. Peterman has not shown the ability one time in the four games. Not once. That doesn't mean he is incapable but he hasn't shown any ability to do it yet. If he can, he could be good. If he can't, he will never be a good starter. The reason he went in the fifth round is the rag arm. Otherwise he goes much, much higher because he has so much going for him otherwise, which has been on display.

Why use an example like that disproves your point? Two deep touchdowns is the quintessential example of why deep balls matter.

Doesn't that show four deep passes including one deep touchdown? Or two deep touchdowns, sorry

Absolutely matters.

This regime puts a huge emphasis on versatility. The fact Seymour can play inside and out is a very important part of his roster spot. McD even mentioned that yesterday. It's not impossible he gets released but what could be seen as weakness is a strength to these guys

He said something to that affect in his post game interview yesterday. I think if he didn't have a rag arm he would have gone in the first or second though.

Forgot about that. He was a remarkable guy and player. Very misunderstood if you knew nothing about him. Really good RB.