Green Bay Packer receiver Jordy Nelson caused a minor commotion in the sports media world recently by claiming that being white helped him, because black defenders allegedly didn’t respect his ability. Because wide receiver in the NFL is stereotyped as black position, it is “assumed” that white wide receivers are not “athletic” or fast enough to play the position. Oh, but Jordy’s fooled them; he’s just as good as any black player. Ha-ha.
I’m old enough to remember a time when white wide receivers were considered superior “skill” position players than blacks. Although most of the top wide receivers in NFL history in terms of numbers are black, that does not correctly gauge the fact that until the 1970s, blacks were uncommon at the wide receiver position. Even today, white wide-outs like Wes Welker, Jason Witten and Dallas Clark are stereotyped as having “good hands,” and are more “smart” route runners than their black counterparts; no doubt that deep down in his psyche, Aaron Rodgers has a special “connection” with Nelson, which leads him to look toward him in a “critical” situation. If race is an “issue” here, it is more likely for much different reasons than the one that Nelson enunciated.
*****************************************************
I was listening to ESPN analyst John Clayton a few days ago on a local radio station when the topic of New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez came up. Aren’t we glad that we (the Seahawks) didn’t draft him? Sanchez played well enough in his first two seasons to lead the Jets to a 4-2 playoff record, all games on the road and twice as many playoff wins as the next Jets quarterback on the list—Joe Namath with a grand total of two. But Sanchez has received little respect from the “experts” and fanboys. Clayton (who reminds me of the aliens in the movie “Mars Attacks!”) used the term “stupid” to describe Sanchez, and that was just enough to set me off. Sanchez’s production and winning percentage is no worse than fellow New York quarterback Eli Manning’s in his first three years; in fact, in Manning’s fourth season, when the Giants somehow won the Super Bowl, he completed only 56.1 percent of his passes, had a 73.9 rating and led the NFC in interceptions. Yet no one ever had anything negative to say about Manning, assuming that he had his brother Peyton’s “genes.”
Sanchez, apparently, doesn’t have the “genes.” Of course, that is how the lack of black quarterbacks in the NFL in the early days was explained. Latino quarterbacks don’t have a “track record” in the NFL, so commentators usually go on what they know, which is nothing. These days, anyone with a Spanish name used in conjunction with anything that doesn’t have something to do illegal immigration or drug violence is likely to raise suspicion, largely due to the hate-fueled political rhetoric toward “Mexicans” these days. Because of this, it is easier to use pejorative, deliberately demeaning terms without fear of being called a racist. Even after Clayton went down a laundry list of reasons that the team around Sanchez is inferior to the team of last year—including the fact that Plaxico Burress is really just an average receiver compared to the departed Braylon Edwards—he still could not help himself in degrading Sanchez. It turned my stomach.
The Jets have been a mostly lousy team since 1969, the last season it had a winning record with Joe Namath at quarterback—which frankly makes his current criticisms rather hypocritical and self-serving. But considerably more unpalatable is Mike Greenberg of ESPN’s “Mike and Mike in the Morning” tiresome Jets fanboy BS. Last year, after Sanchez led the Jets to several thrilling last minute comeback victories, including two in overtime, Greenberg feted him with his own “song.” Greenberg was of course “devastated” after the Jets defense failed to stop the Steelers on that late 3rd-and-eight in the AFC championship game; based on past history, Sanchez would surely have led the team for a winning score. This year, Greenberg was consumed with the idea that the Jets only needed to take the “next” step to the Super Bowl, and it all depended on Sanchez’s play. Being a Packer fan, I am well aware of the pitfalls of such fantasies; when it was said after the 2007 season the team was a “quarterback away” from the Super Bowl—meaning ditch Favre in favor of Rodgers; well, the team only went from 13-3 to 6-10 in Rodgers’ first year as a starter. This year, the Jets can’t run the ball if their lives depended on it, and the offensive line can’t block. If Sanchez makes a mistake, it’s because he must be “stupid,” according to commentators.
I’ve seen many a Brett Favre “pick-six.” According to Pro-Football Reference, he threw 33 in his career. But he isn’t alone; Dan Marino threw 30 with 2,000 fewer pass attempts, and Peyton Manning has “only” 17. With 26 interceptions returned for touchdowns, Joe Namath’s average of one per 150 pass attempts is “tops” in NFL history. I watched Sanchez’s pick-six against the Broncos later after the game, and that play is something we’ve seen happen a hundred or so times to other quarterbacks—like Manning, when Tracy Porter of the Saints “read” his pass in the Super Bowl. But oh no, Peyton’s not “stupid” or “incompetent” like Sanchez. Commentators didn’t even use those terms to describe JaMarcus Russell; oh sure, he was not mentally into the game or physically prepared, but he wasn’t “stupid.” No, you only relegate such terms to demographics who don’t have enough of a presence in the league to warrant governing one’s tongue. What the NFL needs is someone like Ozzie Guillen.
I was listening to the Jets-Broncos game on the national radio broadcast. It seems to me that not only is the national and local media criticism of Sanchez is getting into his head, it is effecting how his teammates look at him. These guys listen to all the criticism of Sanchez, and it’s easy to focus blame on him instead of looking at their own play. The offensive line stinks, and during the game when Sanchez underthrew a ball to Dustin Keller that Keller acted in disgust about, the color analyst pointed out that it was a “good” play because if Sanchez had waited a moment longer for Keller to turn around he would have been sacked deep in Jets territory. How often does this happen, and no one “notices?” Then there was the play preceding the interception; it was a either a bad pass by Sanchez or a bad route run by Burress, but whatever it was Burress openly “showed-up” Sanchez with a disgusted gesture. On the interception, Sanchez again threw to Burress; the announcers thought that Sanchez only threw the ball in his direction because he wanted to “make up” for the previous play so he could get on his “good” side. Is this how the Jets offense works, that Sanchez has to assuage players’ piques in order for them to “trust” him--because they believe the negative hyperbole about him too?
Fanatical fanboys like Greenberg need to blame someone for “his” team’s failure to win every game, and since Sanchez hasn’t “elevated” his game sufficiently to compensate for the Jets shortcomings, it is “proof” that he has hit a wall and cannot proceed further; Greenberg has even gone so far as to grovel to colleagues to confirm this belief he has, and some--like Chris Carter, who never played on a Super Bowl team--seem only too happy to oblige his blubbering. Although the “bust” label has not been affixed to him, commentators nevertheless feel free to call Sanchez a “mistake” by the Jets in believing he is “the answer” at quarterback. I don’t doubt that Sanchez was thrown into the fire too early, with only one full year of college play behind him, but this is no reason to denigrate and abuse him. He has never come across as narcissistic like many players, yet he’s an easy target for abuse. Why?
It wasn’t that long ago that Azteca TV sports reporter Ines Sainz was abused by Jets players and coaches. They surely knew she was there primarily to cover Sanchez for Spanish language television. Perhaps that episode told us more than some of us would like to admit.
*************************************************************
I’m not a NASCAR fan by any stretch, but if I had to pick a driver to support, it would be Tony Stewart because this Indiana native seems to get under the skin of his Deep South competitors. So congratulations to Stewart for winning the NASCAR cup title. However, there is a reason why I’m not a fan of racing, and most of it was on display before the final race began. When First Lady Michelle Obama was introduced to the crowd as one of the “grand marshals” as well as to promote a military family support initiative, there was a smattering of boos to be heard. Perhaps these people would be within their “rights” to do so if the president was in her place, but it was the height of disrespect and unchivalrousness for these people to act this way. Even a left-leaning crowd would not have so contemptuous as to abuse Laura Bush in a similar fashion. Maybe for these people, it was “instinctive” to boo a black woman who didn’t “belong” in a setting that originated in the anti-government and law-breaking activities of white “good old boy” moonshiners.
Lest anyone think that racial politics and sports can’t co-mingle, take the reaction to the announcement came that some NBA players were volunteering to play in the “Obama Classic” basketball game. Admittedly it is a political fundraiser, but on sports websites like the Yardbarker, you get comments like this from “Doug”:
“how come every one is offended by the by the n word. its been used for many years in the sports industry.
“Doug” then gives some examples of how he views the make-up of certain sports organizations:
nba- negro basketball association
mlb- mexican-latino baseball
ncaa- negro colored athletic association
nfl. negro football leauge
nhl- national honkey league”
And from “Sue”:
“This is our country and our life at stake. The blacks have made it a racist issue by giving Obama 99 percent of their support because he is half black” and “A class war and to an extent a race war has been escalated under Obama’s leadership and instability is showing up dramatically in America.” Obviously by “our” she means “white.” In between, “Sue” engages in a diatribe that accuses Obama of being responsible for leaving the country in tatters—the country that George Bush left in such “great” shape.
And all of this over a basketball game.
No comments:
Post a Comment