Richard Sherman is getting a lot of pub these days. I guess it is fair to say that his rant trashing Crabtree brought a lot of focus on him. He is a great player, has a degree from Stanford, and he is community minded,

Ricard Sherman quote from a recent interview with CNN

Quote:

"It was really mind-boggling the way the world reacted," Sherman said. "I can't say the world, I don't want to generalize people like that because there are a lot of great people who didn't react that way. But for the people who did react that way and throw the racial slurs and things like that out there, it was really sad. Especially that close to Martin Luther King Day."

He states much of the criticism was based on racial hatred more or less. Thoughts?

I didn't see the big deal about it. He just won a big game.

If he was white, it still would have been a big story and he still would have gotten lots of criticism (right or wrong. I was entertained by it, although probably not the best actions to take. I thought the choke sign was worse than the speech, but the whole thing was way overblown.)

That said, only takes a cursory glance on twitter to see that racism was driving some of the blowback. He's correct that the word thug would have been used a lot less if he was a different color.

So what?

If Richie Incognito graduated from Stanford would you be highlighting this?

Racist.

Edit: low level racist tho. Like a 1.4 on a scale of 1-10

All reports indicate a history of Sherman making attempts to act with class, and Crabtree responding by being a complete douche. #TeamSherman

It is an above average academic accomplishment for anyone methinks.

This thread is not about Icognito. If it was and he did I would.

So I am a racist for pointing out an above average academic achievement. I am sure Sherman is much more intelligent than you are. I don't find that at all surprising. I'd be shocked if he wasn't.

Looks like white envy of a black guy that is far superior to you in about every way society values. I rate this as 10.0 out of 10.0 on a scale of 10 for being a racist. Your envy is shameful.

Yeah, that's why I thought the choke sign to Kaepernick was kind of a douche move more than anything else (although Kaepernick isnt exactly a stranger to trash talk)

Probably wasn't the best time to make those remarks for the reasons Sherman mentioned later, but understandable in the heat of the moment.

#TeamSherman not doing their research.

<- Guilty as charged.

Way off.

You can tell Sherman is very smart, affable, nice, and has a great personality etc etc from interviews he has done in the past couple years. "Thug" is the last thing I would label Sherman from seeing how he was in previous interviews. We are poker players, right? These things are easy to read about him.

The only thing I would say negatively about Sherman as far as his recent antics go......is that he is a VERY VERRRRY insecure person, trying to have the spotlight shown on him and beating his chest. Which pretty much just makes him a toolbag, if anything.

You are racist (and again, low level racist) because you feel the need to point out that he went to Stanford, when there is no reason at all to point out that he went to Stanford, with all this crap that is going on with him. What if he went to the best pre-school money could buy when he was 5 years old? Would you have pointed that out too?

The only reason you are pointing out that he went to Stanford is because you think he looks like a "thug" and has recently acted like a "thug" in your mind. And you want to remind people.....hey hey, guys... but he went to Stanford don't be so racist and judge him, even though I'm being racist feeling the need to point out that he went there. Since he doesn't look like or act like the Stanford type.

There are lots of guys in the NFL that went to Stanford that nobody else says, OH he went to stanford, he's probably really smart. If Richie Incognito went to Stanford after seeing that video of him surfacing, I highly doubt you would be making sure everyone knew that he went to Stanford.

Silver_Man is posting about racism and is...right?!?!?!?

He must be being facetious. It's the only explanation.

Was thinking the same thing.

* duh, almost all of the criticism he's actually getting is based on race

* "thug" as a codeword for n***** is pretty accurate

* the "outburst" was moderately douchey but it was entertaining to see a guy caught up in the moment and in the context of "douchey things NFL players do" it's not even in the top 10,000

* it is in fact hilarious that his apologists feel the need to add "stanford graduate" every time his name is mentioned

* holy **** this story has gotten really dumb. at lunch today ESPN 2 was on (but muted) at this restaurant I was at, this ******ed show called "numbers never lie" was on and THE BIG QUESTION these dip****s were debating: "did the media cause the sherman outburst??" OMFG STFU. What the **** numbers could they possibly have on this topic? Is this show just a bunch of dickheads who are like "oh statistics are elite we should make it sound like our show is all about statistics but in reality we'll just do the same lazy ****ing pundit gasbagging that we've always done?

I don't think anyone on ESPN has even mentioned RW or PM since the end of the NFCCG.

blind squirrel

You probably shouldn't comment on something you watched while it was muted. On topics such as these, no numbers are given; it's just a regular sports talk show.

Half facetious and half not.

LOL i don't feel compelled to. Not many thugs graduate from Stanford. You are way off base. Your accusations are basically akin to prove you didn't beat your wife last night. Morons gonna be morons.

So I assumed correctly? Kinda weird to get all butthurty "you shouldn't comment about that" about that IMO.

Of course, the story is that is actually a story people are analyzing and debating.

Nope. On the vast majority of topics, statistics are indeed presented to 'settle' the debate (in addition to the statistics presented during the debate). It's only in cases such as these—which, again, make up a small minority of their topics—where numbers aren't at the forefront of the discussion.

Pretty sure your earlier post displays significantly more markers of butthurt than mine, e.g. dip****s, OMFG STFU, What the **** numbers, bunch of dickheads, lazy ****ing pundit gasbagging, etc.

Basically, lol@u.

LOL @ most of these. Sherman on Bourbon Street last year was 100% good-natured and 100% awesome. That Revis got butthurt about it is not on Sherman.

Skip Bayless is ignorant, pompous, and egotistical. He's one of the biggest *******s on TV. There's a thread in SE called "Is Skip Bayless ******ed?" And the answer is yes. It's about time someone called that tool out.

Applauding an opposing player who beat him? LOL. How unsportsmanlike! But ehrmehgerd, maybe he wasn't 100% genuine!

Hey guys, let's make sure we criticizes the guy talking, but apologize for the guy who punches someone else in the face.

nailed it

Sure, I never said any of examples given were super bad or whatever, just that he has a history of not acting with 'class' (which was the claim made earlier—though perhaps in jest).

lol never seen the golfclap before, that's ****ing awesome

I like Sherman way more after reading that article + watching Bayless interview