December 31, 2008

Who has turned out to be right in the Limbaugh-Black QB Controversy?

Back in 2003, Rush Limbaugh got himself in all sorts of trouble for saying during his (brief) tenure as a pregame show analyst for ESPN that Philadelphia Eagles QB Donovan McNabb wasn't as good as the media claimed:

"I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Five and a half seasons later, McNabb is still a pretty good quarterback, with his team in the playoffs again.

But, it's worth taking a statistical look at black quarterbacks' performance in the NFL.

The source for my data is ESPN.com. It lists for the seven years 2002-2008 all the quarterbacks who have thrown at least 224 passes in a season (14 per game) -- in other words, the busiest 32 to 34 quarterbacks per year -- the "regulars."

One thing that jumps out of the data is that 2003, the year of the Limbaugh brouhaha, was the peak year in recent times for black quarterbacks. Among the top 32 quarterbacks that year, blacks accounted for over one quarter of all yards throw. In 2008, however, blacks only accounted for 14.7% of all yards passing among the top quarterbacks, a typical percentage for the last four seasons:

2002 21.6%
2003 25.7%
2004 17.7%
2005 15.7%
2006 13.0%
2007 15.8%
2008 14.7%

Other ways of measuring quarterbacks show similar stories. For example, the NFL's Passer Rating statistic (which aggregates percent completed, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage, and interception percentage) shows that the highest rated black passer in 2008 was Seattle's Seneca Wallace at 13th, followed by McNabb at 15th, Jason Campbell of Washington at 19th, David Garrard of Jacksonville at 20th, and JaMarcus Russell of Oakland at 26th.

Black quarterbacks tend to run better on average, but with Michael Vick in prison, none of the black regulars did much rushing in 2008.

So, it looks like Limbaugh's general assertion that black quarterbacks tended to be overhyped by the press has been borne out by the following half decade of statistics.

54 comments:

Vernunft said...

Two things.

When Mr. Limbaugh said that, the Eagles defense was extraordinarily good, but all the media talked about was McNabb, McNabb, McNabb. The defense was an enormous part of the Eagles success a few years ago, and I can't remember anyone giving it proper credit then, nor in hindsight. So even if McNabb had been Marino-like in his numbers, the media attention on him and neglect on his team would have been inappropriate.

You also have to consider that despite McNabb's sometimes godlike performances on the field, he can also play pretty badly. He's notorious for still having trouble with his accuracy. Again, the way this is reported betrays a certain pro-McNabb bias in the media. When McNabb has a series of bad incompletions, it's the receivers making drops, not McNabb making bad throws. Usually, in fact, it's just McNabb. Even when he's not under pressure, he has a strange knack for one-hopping balls into wide-open receivers. Because he often alternates bad games with brilliant games, the inaccuracy problem often gets overlooked. But it's been there for his entire career, and he even got benched this season for having problems. It's just a basic quarterbacking skill you'd figure he'd have grasped by now - I tended to think, for his first few years, that it was just inexperience. But no, he keeps doing it.

The fact that it takes some random commenter on the internet to point this out, and that ESPN won't analyze it at all, is probably proof that Rush was right - there's a desire for McNabb to do well that colors any coverage of his successes and failures. He's a good QB, but nowhere near the McNabb image a lot of media personalities seem to have constructed.

Anonymous said...

The top four vote-getters for the Heisman trophy were white. I'm still waiting for someone in the media to tell us when the last time that happened.

out with the old said...

who the hell cares. only two or three more professional sports season cycles before the american economy melts down completely.

mass unemployment bread lines foreign war and civil war are coming you jackasses.

while youve been stuffing your face in front of your big screen tv... others have been laying the groundwork for socialist revolution in this country. the media the schools the armed forces the police and even the churches are all on board with the program.

just keep clutching that pigskin. squeeze your eyes shut and pretend the world isnt "like getting all serious dude"

f u and your espn and your video games and your chips and salsa.

RobertHume said...

Someone should just ask the question differently ... when was the last time there was no black among the top four vote-getters. That way the question is about white racism and not about white athletic ability.

Truth said...

"So, it looks like Limbaugh's general assertion that black quarterbacks tended to be overhyped by the press has been borne out by the following half decade of statistics."

What about his assertion that "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go."?

Ask anyone who lives in Syracuse that question and you may get a better answer.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Can you put another column which shows how many of the top 32 quarterbacks each year was black?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else noticed that more and more sports commentators on American TV are black? (Rhetorical question.)

Chuck said...

It happened in 2001 when Eric Crouch won the trophy.

I respect the viewpoints of this board, and there are a lot of them that make sense, but why are the last umpteen posts all about the shortcomings of blacks in America? I mean, if you want to talk about the past, why is McNabb's hype any more interesting than Limbaugh's hype of his conservative values, despite his being addicted to painkillers?

I'm as wide-eye open to the reality that the media does corrupt the correct view of race and racial differences in this country, but isn't it a little excessive on this board?

Anonymous said...

Limbaugh made the mistake of bringing in race (and by association, his politics) into a football discussion. This is verbotten in sports broadcasting. Nobody wants to think about politics, race, foreign policy, taxes, or regulation while enjoying a football game on television. Football has been a de facto respite from "all of that" where blacks and whites can sit together in a sports bar or staff lounge and pull for the same teams regardless of their differences personally or professionally. Limbaugh, usually more aware than this, brought up an ugly family secret at a picnic while -that- aunt was there.


McNabb can be terrific when he's on as Vernunfit mentioned, but he's prone to some games or stretches within games where he is astonishingly inaccurate for some very peculiar reason.

Anonymous said...

The same thing that Limbaugh said about McNabb could be said for Obama. Imagine the horror for liberals if Obama has a failed Presidency!

Ed Campion said...

Vernunft and Anonymous shamelessly overlook the past history of invidious discrimination against African-American Quarterbacks. I propose a new "Rooney Rule" in which Touchdown Passes by AAQBs would count for 7 points.

African-American punters and place kickers need to receive some sort of "Rooney" too. I propose 2 points for a PAT, 4 for a Field Goal, and 10 yards subtracted from the receiveing teams final position on punts and kick-offs.

Diversity is our strength!

Long live the new world order!

Tyler said...

Steve, you need to give us the percentage of regular QBs that are black per year, as well.

Anonymous said...

Interesting thread. However, I don't think the "inconsistent" label can be applied to McNabb exclusively. Favre is regarded with Manning and Brady as one of the 3 best QBs in the league but he has thrown inexcusable interceptions in his teams' last game over the last two years that have eliminated both of them (Packers and Jets) from the playoffs. Favre (1-1) has only one more Super Bowl victory than McNabb (0-1).

Anonymous said...

Hey, what happened to jody's fine and informative comment?

poolside said...

Just like last year, the 2008 Texas high school championship football games featured a number of predominately white teams from suburban/exurban areas like Lake Travis, Wylie, Allen, Katy, etc.

Are white athletes making a comeback? It's certainly strange to see a winning team with white receivers and running backs.

Of course, these teams aren't heavily recruited by major colleges. But they seem to be able to work together to beat teams that feature the blue-chippers.

Anonymous said...

Hey Steve. For 2008, you named 5 black quarterbacks out of 32 or 16% and they gained about 15% of the yards - about the same average as the whites.

David Davenport said...

Steve,

Vince Young not doing too well with the Tight-uns.

Anonymous said...

"Favre is regarded with Manning and Brady as one of the 3 best QBs in the league"

By who? Favre could be the white McNabb: good, but erratic and over-hyped.

- Fred

Anonymous said...

Looks to me that at least in 2008, the average number of yards gained by black quarterbacks is the same as that by white quarterbacks. So there is no evidence that the coaches and recruiters are engaging either in affirmative action or in discrimination.

ben tillman said...

Nobody wants to think about politics, race, foreign policy, taxes, or regulation while enjoying a football game on television.

That may be, but they continually lecture us about the fact there are just 6 black coaches among 119 in D-1A, nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

I am the Anonymous who posted earlier about Favre. Here is support for my argument:

Running Back Jones: Favre's play warranted benching

Days after the Jets' 1-4 finish left them out of the playoffs and helped trigger Eric Mangini's firing as coach, running back Thomas Jones blasted Favre's final-game performance and seemed to suggest the QB's play -- nine interceptions and only two touchdown passes in the final five games -- called for his benching.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3804004

Anonymous said...

Nobody wants to think about politics, race, foreign policy, taxes, or regulation while enjoying a football game on television. Football has been a de facto respite from "all of that" where blacks and whites can sit together in a sports bar or staff lounge and pull for the same teams regardless of their differences personally or professionally

Exactly, which is why it needs to be taken apart.

Anonymous said...

"Favre (1-1) has only one more Super Bowl victory than McNabb (0-1)."

Put another way, Favre has as many Super Bowl victories as all black QBs in NFL history, combined.

Anonymous said...

I actually admire McNabb for admitting earlier this season that he didn't realize NFL games can end in a tie. Could you imagine Obama admitting to any shortcoming whatsoever?

Anonymous said...

As a Philadelphian who has seen most of McNabb’s games (many in person), Vernunft is essentially correct about him. He is not all that great and he has gotten a lot of credit for the team’s success that should go to it’s defense and the running backs. Also, Philly’s WRs are better than they are usually given credit for (they looked a hell of a lot better when Jeff Garcia was throwing the ball to them). McNabb’s problems basically stem from three deficiencies:

1) He’s stupid. This is the most important of his deficiencies. He had a Wonderlic score of 14, which equates to an IQ of 88. Most of your successful QBs in the modern game have an IQ comfortably above 110. (e.g., Brady – 126, Peyton Manning – 118, Eli Manning – 138; also note, that Vince Young’s (IQ 72) replacement, Kerry Collins only surpasses Young on one stat measured in the combine – IQ (120) and look at the difference in the Titans success). IQ is probably more important than ever for QBs because the defenses run so many formation changes that QBs are forced to audible a lot at the line. In effect, play QB is becoming more and more of a chess match between the QB and the defensive coordinator than just one between the two teams offensive and defensive coordinators. Notice how Brady, the Manning brothers and other successful QBs are yelling and screaming and changing things at the line of scrimmage so that they barely have time to get the plays off. McNabb virtually never does this. He just runs the play and can’t adjust to the defensive set. He probably isn’t mentally capable of doing this with an 88 IQ. What really drove this home to me was when Garcia was filling in for McNabb and he was asked a question during a post game interview. He said something along the lines of, “Yeah, on the 2nd drive of the 3rd quarter when it was 2nd and 8 I saw they had lined up in cover 2, so I called an audible for the receiver to (run some sort of route or other) which I knew would be undefended and we got a touchdown out of it.” McNabb would never in a million years display this much understanding about and command of a game. His mental limitations that mean he can’t identify defensive sets and he is also terrible at running through his progressions and finding secondary and tertiary receivers. There have been many times that I have seen wide open receivers that he has not picked up. You noticed this particularly when you attend the games live. On TV, because the camera tends to follow the ball, you don’t really get to see how many opportunities to hit wide open receivers he blows.

Anonymous above mentioned Favre, who I agree is also overrated. He is also not very bright (IQ 104). In fact, he is like a less “McNabby” version of McNabb – he’s mobile with a great arm (but less so than McNabb) and not too bright (but brighter than McNabb). He can (like McNabb) look spectacular, but makes too many mental errors and throws too many interceptions (after all, he’s not just the all-time leader in TD passes, he’s also the all-time leader in interceptions).

2) He’s inaccurate. He often throws the ball too hard, too low and behind his receivers, thereby making it extremely difficult for them to catch his passes and setting them up to get clocked flatfooted by the safeties and LBs. He also doesn’t seem to know where his receivers are supposed to break on their routes (thereby temporarily creating space from the DBs), so he doesn’t throw the ball to were they will be so that they can keep running after the catch without breaking stride. Instead, he waits for them to make their break and get open so that by the time the ball gets there, the DBs have already begun to close again. (Again, this may be partially due to his 88 IQ.)

Also often overlooked is that he has had great out of the backfield receiving RBs for his career (Ricky Watters, Charlie Garner, Dorsey Levens, Deuce Staley, and Brian Westbrook. His career passing stats (particularly his low number of interceptions) look better than his passing ability really is largely because of the quality of his out of the backfield receivers. They allow him to throw little 3 to 7 yard dink passes and screens and can turn them into big gains. The games where he has struggled this year (and in the past) were when his RBs were ineffective due to injury (like Westbrook for much of this year). When he can’t dump of little dink passes and has to throw downfield into traffic to his WRs and TEs, he can’t see the field well enough and throws a lot of interceptions and can’t “thread the needle on his passes.” Also notice that his passer rating usually ranks much higher than his DVAO rating, which is a much better measure of passing efficiency. Also notice that he gets tons of time from his O-line and still holds the ball way too long and gets himself sacked a lot.

3) He’s a choker. Accuracy and brains aside, McNabb can look great in garbage time, but he chokes in important situations. He spent his shot at the super bowl hyperventilating in the huddle. As many Philly fans can attest, if the Eagles are down by more than 3 but less than 7, with a few minutes to go and the ball on their own 20 or 30, you know that McNabb will not pull it off. (Kind of like the anti-Elway – he’ll never come through in the clutch).

Also, McNabb is not the QB he was a few years ago. When he came into the league, he ran a 4.59 40. On average, DTs run about 5.1, DEs 4.8, MLBs 4.7, and OLBs 4.65. Now McNabb only runs in the mid 4.8s. So, in the past he could outrun all the defenders in the “box.” Now he can only get away from the DTs. This makes a huge difference on how much pressure he can apply to a team, which in turn brings his cruddy passing to the fore as a liability.

- Philly Guy

CJ said...

There really is some sort of a reality distortion field around Donovan McNabb. In the 2006 season the Eagles went 5-6 under McNabb until he suffered a season-ending injury in week 11. Jeff Garcia took over at QB and the team finished 10-8, winning the five last regular season games and then winning the first playoff game. So, the Eagles management ... got rid of Garcia.

Jeff said...

I grew up in the Philly area and have followed the Eagles for years. I like Rush but thought his comment was wrong, because McNabb in my opinion has been very good. Sure he is inconsistent, but although the media likes him, McNabb has also had to deal with the Philly fans, who tend to be crude and extra critical. They booed him at the draft for goodness sake. (How's Ricky Williams doing now, Philly idiots?) McNabb has generally handled it with class. So I kind of feel sympathy for the guy. McNabb is also fun to watch because of his flashes of brilliance, so he's more entertaining than your typical white QB.

Anonymous said...

Jeff said:

"How's Ricky Williams doing now, Philly idiots?"

Well Jeff, that's a silly statement. RBs don't last as long as QBs. Ricky had 4 1000 yard seasons in a row in his heyday. If the Eagles had done what Tom Modrak wanted and picked up Mark Brunell as a free agent and drafted Ricky Williams instead of McNabb, the Eagles would probably have won at least one Superbowl with that amazing defense they had (most of whom Modrak drafted) in the 4 years they went to the NFC championship game. Instead, Reid wanted total control and got Modrak fired over a power struggle as to who would control player personel selection. Modrak saw the wisdom in not picking a QB with an 88 IQ.

Lies said...

Soon there will be no Black QB Controversy.

Because we're not far from a critical mass of "like-minded" NFL franchise owners.

The most important questions are the questions that are never discussed in school: "Who? Whom?"

Takahata Yuichi said...

The posts on this board are really becoming rather silly. We have a poster who is likening a low IQ to low performance in *playing football*. When you were talking about economic and educational performance, it made sense. When you start bringing it into playing football as if it requires complex, abstract thought, you are making yourself look foolish.

And since when is 104 "not that bright"? If I recall, that is above the average for your ethnic group.

Anonymous said...

Takahata Yuichi, we are talking about the quarterback position, do you understand how American football works? The QB does need some degree of abstract thought, similar to the way fighter pilots do. The military doesn't let people with 88 IQ's fly airplanes.

Ed Campion said...

Takahata Yuichi said...

And since when is 104 "not that bright"? If I recall, that is above the average for your ethnic group.


Uh ... the idea in the NFL is to be the best not just above average. Would you draft a sumo wrestler merely because he was above the average weight for his ethnic group? Would any NFL team draft a QB with an AQ (athletic) that was only 104?
Not bloodly likely.

David said...

There really is some sort of a reality distortion field around Donovan McNabb

Just wait until you see the one around Obama. Like the economy, "he cannot be allowed to fail," but will.

Truth said...

"If the Eagles had done what Tom Modrak wanted and picked up Mark Brunell as a free agent and drafted Ricky Williams instead of McNabb, the Eagles would probably have won at least one Superbowl..."

Yes, if they had signed Mark Brunell, he of the lifetime 84 QB rating, to place with headcase Rickey Williams (now on his third team) in place of McNabb and Westbrook, they would have been more successful.

Another third-rate armchair NFL GM.

"And since when is 104 "not that bright"? If I recall, that is above the average for your ethnic group."

OOOOOOOOOOOh, I like it, that is blistering!. I especially love the derisive, back-handed "for your ethnic group." That's the type of covert ridicule I generally come up with.

This Asian has thrown the gauntlet white man, do you dare to pick it up?

Anonymous said...

Takahata, you obviously don't know much about American football. It is infinitely more sophisticated than that peasant game with the same name played in the rest of the world. And yes, a 104 IQ is not very high for a quarterback, a position where intelligence is a key factor.

Anonymous said...

Takahata Yuichi said:
"The posts on this board are really becoming rather silly. We have a poster who is likening a low IQ to low performance in *playing football*...When you start bringing it into playing football as if it requires complex, abstract thought, you are making yourself look foolish."

Actually, for most positions, such as RBs (avg IQ 92 for HBs and 94 for FBs), WRs (94), TEs (104) D-linemen (100), DBs (S-98 , CB-96) and LBs (98), you are correct. They are mostly simple and reactive. (Note, however, that even the heavily black positions are smarter than the average African American and that the players, even in these positions, have to memorize thick, complex playbooks.) However, some positions, such as offensive line (C-110, G-106, T-112) and, especially, QB (108), do require the ability to recognize (often disguised) defensive schemes quickly and adjust blocking schemes or the play being run to take advantage of the situation. The better QBs tend to be considerably smarter than the average QB (see Brady and the Mannings noted above), often well into the top 10% of the general population. Better offensive lines also tend to be smarter than average. For example, the excelent NE Patriots O-line has an average IQ of 117 ranging from 110 to 122.

Takahata went on to say:

"And since when is 104 "not that bright"?"

It's not that bright for a QB, just as 130 isn't that bright for a theoretical physicist - everything is relative.

"If I recall, that (IQ 104) is above the average for your ethnic group."

You assume a lot about my "ethnic group" my little yellow friend. Actually, I'm an Episcopalian, and, along with the Jews, we put any Mongoloid group to shame in measures of g. (see http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/12/episcopalians_vs_jews.php#more and the links therein).

Danindc said...

Philly Gut nailed it.... i would have wrote exactly that but more concisely. QB is the hardest position to play of all sports- it helps to be 6'5" and really smart.

Redskin fans are dealing with this reality with jason campbell (Wonderlic 16) and will probably have to suffer through 1-2 more seasons.....DC is different than Philly though bc not one local columnist has criticized Campbell...in fact Wilbon and Wise insinuated it was racist to do so... PC is the name of the game in DC

looking back what Limbaugh said was amazing....Nowadays that topic is NEVER broached in any capacity, ESPN is insanely PC... the looks on the panelists faces when he said that was priceless

Can someone explain the Who/ Whom? to me... I know it's important to a lot of what's discussed on this board and it annoys me that people throw it out there expecting other people to understand... i am not that smart in most subjects

ahistorical roman said...

Danindc:



Marx's emphasis on class conflict provided Lenin with an easy category for identifying his enemies. Also, Marxism was posited on the ideas of a single absolute truth, the predestined victory of the cause, and the fallibility and expendability of the individual. Therefore it lent itself to the suppression of dissenters and vidual. Therefore it lent itself to the suppression of dissenters and the extermination of opponents. Lenin, with his knack for hortatory pungency, reduced the past and future alike to two pronouns and a question mark: "Who—whom?" No verb was necessary. It meant who would prevail over whom? And the question was largely rhetorical, implying that the answer was never in doubt. Lenin and those who followed him would prevail over "them," whoever they were.




That's from Time magazine of all places. Sums it up o.k.

Anonymous said...

This year's Heisman winner was a Cherokee (gotta stick up for the home team).

Neshobanakni

Anonymous said...

"Yes, if they had signed Mark Brunell, he of the lifetime 84 QB rating . . ."

As opposed to McNabb's 86.

Anonymous said...

"However, some positions, such as offensive line (C-110, G-106, T-112) and, especially, QB (108), do require the ability to recognize (often disguised) defensive schemes quickly and adjust blocking schemes or the play being run to take advantage of the situation."

Offensive linemen don't need IQs of 110+ to be good. The reason why they are more likely to have those IQs is because they are more likely to be white. The reason they are more likely to be white is because the O-line requires less speed than any other position on the field. Generally, most whites only have the speed for OL, TE, QB, and FB positions on offense. The white guys who are 6'5" and up go for TE and QB; those who are ~6'2"-6'5" might go for OL, DT, or LB positions; and those under 6'0" have a chance at playing FB if they are gym rats and willing to block on almost every play.

- Fred

Truth said...

...As the lone Samurai slowly and purposefully draws his Katana, the four Teutonic knights scatter clumsily, in their full body armor, for the protection of their horses...

CJ said...

Vladimir "Lenin" Ulyanov's "Who-Whom" mentality was explained by Time magazine's pinko editor Strobe Talbott as follows:

Marx's emphasis on class conflict provided Lenin with an easy category for identifying his enemies. Also, Marxism was posited on the ideas of a single absolute truth, the predestined victory of the cause, and the fallibility and expendability of the individual. Therefore it lent itself to the suppression of dissenters and vidual. Therefore it lent itself to the suppression of dissenters and the extermination of opponents. Lenin, with his knack for hortatory pungency, reduced the past and future alike to two pronouns and a question mark: "Who—whom?" No verb was necessary. It meant who would prevail over whom? And the question was largely rhetorical, implying that the answer was never in doubt. Lenin and those who followed him would prevail over "them," whoever they were.

PC is the name of the game in DC.

Now that one is a keeper. It's almost like a rhyming palindrome.

ben tillman said...

Can someone explain the Who/ Whom? to me...

It's the same as he/him or they/them.

Anonymous said...

I don't get the who/whom thing either.

Anonymous said...

Fred said:

"Offensive linemen don't need IQs of 110+ to be good. The reason why they are more likely to have those IQs is because they are more likely to be white."

Truth said:

"Yes, if they had signed Mark Brunell, he of the lifetime 84 QB rating, to place with headcase Rickey Williams (now on his third team) in place of McNabb and Westbrook, they would have been more successful."

Brunell has been much steadier than McNabb in his career and Rickey Williams does not mean no Westbrook. Westbrook (IQ an impressive (for a running back) 122based on Wonderlic score) was a low round draft choice out of Villanova and comming out of college was thought of as a potential scat back and not an every down runner like Williams. They would have been good complements to one another. For what its worth, there seems to be no great love between Westbrook and McNabb. After Garcias great season with the Eagles Westbrook gave an interview where he basically (within the limits of what he was allowed to say as a member of the Eagles) pleaded for them to keep Garcia as QB.

"...As the lone Samurai slowly and purposefully draws his Katana, the four Teutonic knights scatter clumsily, in their full body armor, for the protection of their horses..."

Why do I bother with you? If you were familiar with European and Japanese armor you would know that their weights were similar at given time periods. For instance, a full suit of gothic plate armor weighted about 55 lbs. on average and the weight was well distributed on the body for maximum mobility. Japanese armors from the Sengoku Jidai had similar weights (in fact, once contact with European merchants began, it became popular among Samurai who could afford it to integrate European made breast and back plates into their suits of armor because they were better at stopping arrows and shot than native armors). In earlier periods, the Japanese O-yoroi style armors (Gempei war era) were actually very bulky and box-like and did not allow very much mobility (which was fine, because the Samurai of that period was basically a mounted archer).
-Philly Guy

Danindc said...

Thanks, but with apologies to Michael Scott....you explained it to me like I'm an 8 year old, now can you explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old

Steve Sailer said...

It strikes me that being a great college football quarterback, as Vince Young was, is an accomplishment in and of itself, whether or not he goes on to be a successful NFL quarterback.

Danindc said...

Agreed Steve- Young beating the hated Trojans was an awesome accomplishment.

I maintain that USC has had the best team in college football every year since Palmer's senior year when they crushed an undefeated Iowa.... the fact they only have two BCS titles is a combination of being unlucky and choking...they were much better than that Texas team and 5 different things had to go UT's way to pull out a win

Truth said...

"If you were familiar with European and Japanese armor you would know that their weights were similar at given time..."


The way, I visualized it reading the posts, Takahata was wearing only a loin cloth. First he blasts you guys insinuating that he had no interest in living amongst an inferior race, then he breaks you off with the "Don't worry Tyrone, a C in algebra 2 in 12th grade is excellent 'for your ethnic group'"

And what's the best you, Ed Campion, and various guys going under "anonymous" come back with?

"Dude I'm not white (stupid) i'm Episcoplaian!"

First you get 'Jap slapped', then a white guy abandons ship like a cowardly admiral.

If that's not funny, you're not alive!

(I love you guys)

Ed Campion said...

John Derbyshire has a nice Lenin who/whom write-up on his old "olimu" site.
Go here

Mokie said...

Truth said...As the lone Samurai slowly and purposefully draws his Katana, the four Teutonic knights scatter clumsily, in their full body armor, for the protection of their horses...

Yeah, those dummy low IQ Teutonic knights never could get it done at Guadalcanal, Midway and all of the other points of interest.

Ed Campion said...

TRUTH:
Can't we all just get along. You're hurting my sensitive feelings.
p.s. FYI: I don't consider myself White -- I'm an Oppressor-American.

Truth said...

Ed, there are no 'Oppressor-Americans', only Oppressed-Americans...And Opressor-Globalists.