Ted Bartlett's thoughts on what others think of Josh McDaniels
Classic Ted article:
"If the McDaniels regime is allowed to continue, and some better defensive talent is acquired, this team will win more games. The offense will gain continuity from repetition, and the defense will have better depth (a huge problem right now) and the key players will also mostly be in their second year in the scheme. If Pat Bowlen gives in to the idiots in the local MSM and the fan base, and fires McDaniels, we should get used to losing, because it’s bound to continue in the near term. I’m just glad to see that Bowlen seems to be keeping calm about this."
over 1 year ago
jwkcsu
24 comments
16 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I'm glad he got around to posting again
Ted has great insights on all things football, but especially the Broncos. He’s a little too cocky sometimes, but definitely knows his stuff. This was a great read and spot on too.
Whether you like McD or not, I still believe the best option for this team really is to have more patience with him. Patience!
great, balanced read.
Puts the process in perspective.
The Fan Formerly known as HillisRanUover...
by theGreatGuessKowski on Nov 30, 2010 10:15 AM MST reply actions
And here I thought I was hard on Broncos fans.
That was overall a great read. The glaring exception being his opinion that most people have a Hillis crush because they are racist.
It seemed like a solid trade for both teams, and the only real objections came from some Broncos fans who had developed man (and woman) crushes on the rare caucasian tailback.
(Yes, caucasian-ness is the primary driver for the majority of the love that Hillis gets. You can’t possibly convince me otherwise, because as a player, he’s not too different from Reuben Droughns or Mike Anderson.
That’s pure PC horsecrap.
Most of the caucasian Broncos fans that I’ve spoken with about Hillis never once hinted in the least bit that they liked him because he is white. I’ve never once gotten that. In fact, the whole concept never even entered my mind until I read that little gem of wisdom from Ted. Wow. Do a lot of people actually walk around with a lot of white guilt like that?
I was, and still am, frustrated over the Hillis trade because he appeared to be a football player. He ran hard when he was with Shanahan and made contributions before he was injured and now he is still doing the same with the Browns. Bottom line: Bad trade by the Broncos. But bad personnel moves will be made by any regime, I understand that. I don’t dwell on it daily.
by Gristle McThornbody on Nov 30, 2010 2:29 PM MST reply actions
Agreed. That is absolute crap. Do I feel all wrong for absolutely loving Floyd Little, Otis Armstrong, and TD (wow, what a huge gap between great running backs there, eh)? Of course not. Absofrickenlutely ridiculous. Hillis is a monster of a football player. Period. And I wish he was still our monster of a football player.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: What's Luck Got to do with it?
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 30, 2010 3:06 PM MST up reply actions
Not what he said
In fact, he said liking Hillis because he’s white does not make you a racist. If you were to take exemption with anything from that particular tidbit, a better place might be with the broad sweeping nature of the claim. There may in fact be fans of Hillis for the reason he mentions, but suggesting this is true for the majority is a major reach.
by CaliforniaBroncosFan on Nov 30, 2010 4:20 PM MST up reply actions
Um, no, that's NOT what he said.
Here, I’ll quote it again with the backhanded disclaimer this time.
It seemed like a solid trade for both teams, and the only real objections came from some Broncos fans who had developed man (and woman) crushes on the rare caucasian tailback.
(Yes, caucasian-ness is the primary driver for the majority of the love that Hillis gets. You can’t possibly convince me otherwise, because as a player, he’s not too different from Reuben Droughns or Mike Anderson. Identifying with people who look like you doesn’t make you a racist, necessarily, so there’s no need to get butt-hurt about this.
Bold emphasis mine.
Straight from the horse’s own mouth. And the “butt hurt” comment doesn’t somehow negate his previous pointed comments. Classic Doublespeak.
by Gristle McThornbody on Nov 30, 2010 7:42 PM MST up reply actions
Clearly not following my point, or his
What I said, is that he did not suggest that being a Hillis fan meant that you were a racist, despite his contention that many people liked Hillis because he is a white RB.
To quote you, “That was overall a great read. The glaring exception being his opinion that most people have a Hillis crush because they are racist.”
So, if you follow my only contention with your post, it was with regards to your original statement, which is clearly not supported by what Ted wrote.
I don’t think I need bold emphasis here to make this point is it should be pretty straightforward.
Like I said in my first reply, I think his comment about Broncos fans liking Hillis because of his race is misguided and far too sweeping to ever be seriously considered as true. But it’s his opinion, and it’s really not that inflammatory anyway. He’s not suggestion a dislike of any particular race, but rather a heightened interest because of a race…not unlike people from Cypress that cheer with extra zeal for the Cypriot tennis player, Marcos Baghdatis. Again, I don’t agree with him because it’s impossible to back up, but it’s not nearly the issue you make it out to be.
by CaliforniaBroncosFan on Nov 30, 2010 9:26 PM MST up reply actions
On the other hand. his point is hard to follow
Part of the problem is Bartlett’s confusing use of the word "racist."
If racist means supporting unequal legal rights or actively hating all non-white people, then his I guess his explanation makes sense.
But, when you look at his claim that white fans prefer white players because people "[identify] with people who look like you," and the main determinant of who does and doesn’t "look like you" seems to be race, I’m not sure why he’s reluctant to call that racism.
His claim is that is Hillis were Black, White Broncos fans would like him X amount, but since he’s white White Broncos fans like him X amount plus a same-race bonus ("the majority of the love that Hillis gets"). He’s saying that White Broncos fans prefer a White player, all things being equal, which sounds an awful lot like a racial preference.
In other words, I think saying "I’m not racist, but I prefer people of my own race" is a puzzling comment. (Or to use your example, if a person from Cypress cheered loudest for fellow Cypriots and then turned around and told me that he’s not at all a nationalist, I’d wonder how he meant the word "nationalist.")
Racial preference is something that’s widely recognized as how racism works, so despite his contention that this is somehow not racist, it’s not so much that Gristle is missing his point – it’s that the original point from Bartlett is contradictory or, at best, vague.
Part of the problem, too, is the bigger issue that the term “racist” carries such a stigma that people are unwilling to accept that it applies to them at all, when acknowledging the ways race works in the culture and thinking it through would be a lot healthier.
I.e., preferring Hillis because he’s White like you doesn’t make you a terrible person, but recognizing it might be a chance to think about how race is part of the frame through which you see the world.
You're point is well taken
In that Ted’s opinion here could be easily misconstrued (as is obvious by the debate it seems to have engendered). The reason that I didn’t note look at his comments as suggesting Broncos fans who like Hillis are racist is because that is a VERY powerful word that has a very specific connotations:
rac·ism
/ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Talking about a difference in races or a preference in races is not sufficient to establish that conversation is inherently racist. Would a woman saying that she preferred Hilary Clinton for President mean that she was a sexist?? Of course it wouldn’t. Because sexism, like racism, also involves negative views towards the other group that perpetuate a feeling a superiority. But this is precisely the kind of reasoning that has caused people to misinterpret the above quote.
Now, in everyone’s defense, I’ll go back to what I said at the beginning of this post. Ted should have written this more clearly if his intent was not to create this kind of confusion. However, maybe, just maybe, he wrote what he did, in the manner that he did, precisely because he knew it had the potential to be misinterpreted…which could likely lead to more people talking about it and reading it. Just a thought.
As an aside about your point with nationalism. Though racism and nationalism (and sexism) as end in that dubious looking “ism”, nationalism does not carry the negative attributes that racism and sexism do. And that’s precisely why I used it as an example. It’s pride in one’s country that would cause someone to cheer louder for the player from their country, not hatred of other countries.
Racial preference is not equivalent to racism. If that were so, that would mean that every person who dated one particular race at the exclusion of others was acting as a racist. This view, would I hope, be rightly seen as absurd.
by CaliforniaBroncosFan on Dec 1, 2010 9:21 AM MST up reply actions
Forgive the typos
Written on my way out the door to work. :)
by CaliforniaBroncosFan on Dec 1, 2010 9:24 AM MST up reply actions
I agree that making the point that “every person who dated one particular race at the exclusion of others was acting as a racist” is pretty silly.
But what about every person who hires employees of one particular race at the exclusion of others? Or a boss who promotes only same-race employees since they will work with them closely and the boss just prefers to be around people like him or her?
The social impact is different, but the logic of racial preference looks pretty similar. And in practice, "preferers" would end up making a lot of the same choices a "racist" would – even if they’d think about it differently.
But, it may be more valuable to worry less about who is and who isn’t “a racist,” but whether we’re clear on all the effects race has on the way we think about things. Especially when it feels like a “natural” fact rather than a set of relationships and ideas that have the potential to change.
I’d say that the fact that people express a racial preference amongst dating partners is evidence of the power of racialized identity — the idea that people are in some fundamental way defined by being a member of some “race” – and that we’re still being encouraged to believe that race is one of the most fundamental things there is to know about someone as part of the decision about who is and isn’t like me.
So, if a social norm encourages people to prefer to date people of their own race (and believe that such a preference has nothing whatsoever to do with the same racial categories "racists" use to understand the world), then that’s part of how racial identity is kept in place and made available to the more harmful and hateful thought and action that more usually goes by the name “racism.”
Again, it doesn’t make any of these preferring people bad people, there’s no need for shame or guilt or anything like that, but it’s a worthwhile thing to acknowledge how race works. Because it’s only by acknowledging the ways race shapes our understanding of the world that progress could be made in changing (assuming one were so inclined) the ways race works in society.
Ps – typos forgiven (not really noticed, actually) :)
However...
…in those cases, it’s no longer racial preference because now you’ve drifted into employment discrimination (a much different, larger and illegal issue). The logical difference between a situation involving employment and one involving dating is so glaring, that I’m a little surprised you’d conflate the two.
Now, racial preference may cause someone to discriminate with regards to race, just like gender preference may cause someone to discriminate with regards to gender, but preference itself is not equivalent to discrimination in the same way that it is not equivalent to racism. Surely you would agree with this, right?
by CaliforniaBroncosFan on Dec 1, 2010 2:59 PM MST up reply actions
well, whatever his point was, it was inane.
comparing hillis to anderson might be close (except that hillis has good hands) but okay, i’ll play the racist game: i would’ve been pissed out of my mind if we would’ve traded mike anderson for brady quinn. i think most fans would’ve been, and it’s asinine for bartlett to make blanket assertions that everyone’s exactly like him. but hey, if it gets people to talk about your blog, i guess.
a year ago i thought strongly that hillis was a damn good football player and that brady quinn was not. i’m sad to say i still feel the same.
I'm not sugarcoating this.
by oxmouth on Dec 2, 2010 10:48 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Overall, a GREAT perspective
IMO, Ted is right on in his assessment here. I am hopeful that the actual decision makers with the Broncos share this same level-headed perspective.
by CaliforniaBroncosFan on Nov 30, 2010 4:22 PM MST reply actions
Ted is usually spot on
As JoePlummer put it, he can seem a bit cocky sometimes… but he backs it up. Plus, his football acumen far exceeds mine, so the cockiness is something I can definitely look past. ;)
Great read!
Bleeding Orange and Blue for 43 years
re; race
It’s quite possible to argue with Ted on the reason that many fans like Hillis but there’s also enough evidence to support his claim. It’s a probabilistic statement of the attitude for some fans and some component of the belief. It’s also not necessarily a belief in traditional racism.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
conveniently, too,
there’s no way to prove he’s wrong. there’s no evidence at all for his specific point—unless i missed the straw poll of all broncos fans showing that they wanted to keep hillis because of his skin color. it’s a bit like saying that i assume that he considers beating his wife on nfl sundays because it’s been proven that men are much more likely to act violently towards women during those times. there’s nothing empirical to back up what ted said, with the exception of some statistical possibility. whatever “non racist” point ted was making when he writes “the only real objections came from some Broncos fans who had developed man (and woman) crushes on the rare caucasian tailback” should be taken as baseless opinion that challenges the reader to prove a negative.
I'm not sugarcoating this.
correct but...........
It’s easier to establish the existence of a general attitude than a specific one, in this case — oddly. And Ted’s statement can be taken in this way, too, since he’s not attributing a specific attitude to anyone in particular but pointing to a general attitude. The number of Hillis fans and the fervor of his support suggests that there may be more to that support than his ability as a player.
The flipside should be mentioned, too. Hillis was considered by some to be the top FB in 08, so I and others were excited about the fact that we were able to draft a projected 4th round prospect in the 7th round. I’ve also seen MOCKs that have us taking Owen Marecic, which I’ve applauded. And, quite obviously, Larsen is white and remains. My prejudice seems to be directed at FBs who can’t block proficiently.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
i think this is true:
The number of Hillis fans and the fervor of his support suggests that there may be more to that support than his ability as a player.
but why does the assumption go to skin color? the trade bothered me on a number of levels—not one of which had anything close to racial implications. e.g. hillis was dirt cheap, he was a hardnosed runner here and i’ve never particularly thought much of brady quinn.
but if there has indeed been an overreaction, i’d submit that it has far more to do with a buildup of agitation and anxiety centered on mcDaniels and a stack of bold, questionable moves (whether one agreed with them or not) than on any kind of penchant for white over black. there might be some of that going on, but to suggest that as the only REAL objection about the hillis trade is overly sensational (is that redundant again?).
oh yeah, and marecic interests me too. it’d be fun to see him and larsen trade in and out at fullback and linebacker. … well, it’d be fun on paper anyway…
I'm not sugarcoating this.
sorry, colinski--that was supposed to be a reply to your "correct but..."
I'm not sugarcoating this.
Great article by Ted
loved this quote "If Pat Bowlen gives in to the idiots in the local MSM and the fan base, and fires McDaniels, we should get used to losing, because it’s bound to continue in the near term. "
by gnarlybroncodude on Dec 7, 2010 5:17 PM MST reply actions
Ted Bartlett's Opinion Is as Flawed As His Perspective.
Bartlett’s piece was just another attack from a McDaniels apologist. He refers to those who didn’t share his assessment of McDaniels as “idiots”. Additionally, he assertion that anti-McDaniels and pro-Hillis fans were racists. This is so typical of the rationalization and glaring hostility to which many McDaniels fanatics subjected other Broncos fans. Just another example of why Denver is better off now that the polarizing McDaniels era has ended.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
