February 12, 2015 at 1:21 pm #18421
That’s great to hear, tigerfb! More competition, and two very exciting prospects!February 12, 2015 at 1:32 pm #18422
Understand that the stereotypes and prejudices also unfairly pigeon hole the black athlete. Not sure that was clear in my previous post.February 12, 2015 at 2:50 pm #18423
Firgit all about Jason . I saw that documentary. Very interesting duscussion. Lots of empirical data.Not sure whether its unusual so much or a fact of life . Not speaking of prejudice rather just the prevalence of talent. The current seemingly arbitrary focus on black athletes as RBs is due to their historical success at the position. Being rather long in the tooth,I recall that the converse was the reality. Black RBs were few and far between in the NFL in the 50s and early 60s. Due in no small measure to the decades of segregation in society.As runners,like Motley,Perry,Younger,Brown,Triplett came into the NFL,the balance started to shift not due to color but talent. That trend has clearly exploded over the last 20-30 years. Human nature for coaches to follow the trend. How others perceive these facts and relate them are to me a slanted reliance on current stereotypes.February 12, 2015 at 3:23 pm #18424
Exactly my point but spoken much more eloquently by the other posters. Combine that with a small school environment and Lehigh becomes the beneficiary…quite often.February 12, 2015 at 3:41 pm #18426
I agree and am not in anyway arguing that the black athletes have succeeded for any other reason but talent. However, I do think race plays a part both ways in terms of position selection and perception. Let me ask you this question, You have two athletes that run the same 40, same vertical, same grades, same high school, same height and weight, etc…. They are both corners one white one black who do you take? Same scenario but they are both Quarterbacks now who do you take? Now we can argue that there will always be variables other than race that separate even the most similar athletes but I would argue that based on position their is certainly some prejudice and stereotyping going on. As a prior college football coach I have seen it first hand.February 12, 2015 at 3:45 pm #18427
I’d agree that there are CERTAINLY coaches and recruiters that allow this to be part of their decision-making process. But I don’t agree that it’s OK, useful, or wise to do so.
The “everything else being equal” scenario is a strawman – everything else is never equal. Decision makers need to identify and find the qualities that make a difference.February 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm #18428
Of course it is a a strawman argument, and I stated there are always different variables that separate the most similar athletes. The point was to illustrate a long standing bias and perception based on positions. I am in complete agreement that these methods should not be used in coaching or recruiting, but am pointing out that they absolutely do.February 12, 2015 at 3:59 pm #18429
Fair enough. Didn’t mean to imply that you thought it is OK.February 12, 2015 at 3:59 pm #18430
todd ,pafan well said. Vottom line, I think most coaches are more concerned with their own jobs seeking the best talent. Agree that often coach may differentiate between similar athletes basdd on color,given the evident success rate of black RBs over the last 30 years. Motivated not by prejudice but self preservation in a tough job. Think TMH has the best take for us. That tendency has privided us the opportunity to have a potentially dominant RB.February 12, 2015 at 4:20 pm #18431
The other subconscious bias is that of a small school. I remember watching Stambaugh play in HS and thought he was way out of our league. As I recall, he got very little interest in football and despite breaking some state records in baseball didn’t get the Notre Dame offer he was hoping for. Again, we were the beneficiary. These are the nuggets we continue to mine with significant success.
I remember talking to a wrestling coach who told me that they look for really good athletes who maybe were off the radar because they came from programs with smaller wrestling rooms but still had good success. They were low risk, high reward type players who can be coached up. Even with scholarships, this will continue to be our bread and butter.February 12, 2015 at 4:30 pm #18432
Great point TMH. I was thinking about that a while ago in our earlier discussion of DB. So true. The small school view of FBs has some broad validity given the enormous transition to the higher level but leaves a lot of good players for us to consider. Remember talking with Kevin over breakfast at a diner in Bergen county. I was wondering why he was trailing a kid from a small town squad. He basically gave me the same logic you quote.February 13, 2015 at 1:17 am #18441
ON DB’s OPPONENTS: Linemen and LBs might have had size, but it LOOKED on tape like I could waltz past some of those defensive backs. Looks like DB had a pretty solid line, and a solid fullback he was following. Maybe our OC learned a little about using fullbacks from those clips.
ON RACE: Glad I stirred up a discussion. Would be a good scientific study comparing size, 40-yard times, etc., to see who got an offer, or who played, at certain positions and who didn’t.
And do smaller schools benefit from kids passed over …?February 13, 2015 at 1:30 am #18442
Lets all knock on wood, not jinx anyone, but way too many pages with a recruits name on the thread. Lets start a new thread about the future of Lehigh and/or the spring game.February 13, 2015 at 12:13 pm #18456
DB = Henry Hynoski. Pretty good HS Back from Southern Columbia. Class A, might even be in the same Conf as S. Williamsport? Good career at Pitt, then on to NFL…..you just never know!February 13, 2015 at 1:16 pm #18460
Ironically, Henry’s sister, Mary Beth came to Lehigh and played basketball.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.