… that I thought was kind of interesting. Not sure if this belongs elsewhere, given that the main focus isn’t sports, but putting it here for now.
Russell Wilson, Seattle Seahawks quarterback, is only the second African-American quarterback to lead his team to a Super Bowl victory (the first being Doug Williams of the Redskins back in 1988, who coincidentally won by a very similar score over the very same team as Wilson). Yet this fact is hardly mentioned at all in the major media (or at least a lot more rarely than one might expect).
Is this a good thing/sign or a bad thing/sign? Or neutral? Or is it all Peyton Manning’s fault with all the legacy talk?
I think it’s just that good black starting QBs have been pretty common in the NFL for some time now. I haven’t been paying close attention, so I’m kinda surprised that no black QB between Doug Williams and now had won a Hyperbole. Because damn, that game was a long time ago.
Because the second person to reach any major milestone is always overlooked unless there’s something else different about it. Everyone knows Jackie Robinson was the first black to play in the majors in the 20th century, but you’d have to be a serious baseball fan to know that Larry Doby was the second (and also the second black manager).
And nowadays, Black QBs are not unusual; there were nine of them starting at the beginning of the season.
Same thing with head coaches. The discussion about Dungee winning the Super Bowl as a black coach dwarfed the conversation about Tomlin winning as the second.
3 of which made the post-season. And all the QB’s are vastly different in playing styles and abilities. I’d say the stigma of the black qb is largely eliminated.
Interesting perspective. By that, do you mean “Seattle didn’t really win, Denver just lost”? Or “Seattle’s offence didn’t lead anything to victory; the defense did all the leading.”
I can almost get behind the second; counting the safety, Seattle’s D singlehandedly outscored Denver. But the former would just be sour grapes, and demonstrably wrong. (And immaturely grumpy, and dangerously close to threadshitting.)
I read it as “Russell Wilson didn’t do anything especially notable as QB in the game”.
That’s not the same as saying the offense (which involves 10 other guys) wasn’t solid nor that Wilson had a bad game. Then again, he wasn’t required do anything especially notable, either.
Tomlin won the Super Bowl two years after Dungy. As I remember it, Dungy and Lovie Smith were the first two black head coaches to appear in the game and that got plenty of attention. So yes, another black coach two years later wouldn’t have gotten as much coverage. This is a little different in that black QBs aren’t much remarked-upon, but it’s interesting that the only other black QB to win the game did so 25 years ago. I didn’t think about it myself, but someone else at the same Super Bowl party did.
As for “he didn’t lead the team to victory…” Meh. He was plenty good and Denver’s defense couldn’t do much against Seattle’s passing game. Wilson wasn’t asked to do a ton in the game and the defense put him in very good field position, but he went 18/25 for 206 yards and two TDs with no turnovers. QBR and QB rating both say that he was very good. What’s the worst you could say about that- that he didn’t “lead” the team but was perfectly solid?
What the Great Antibob said - Russell Wilson didn’t do anything above and beyond to have credited him with “led his team to a SB victory”. It’s the same reasoning I use when I argue about using W-L record for a QB - it’s a team sport, why are you attaching a team statistic to an individual player? Why don’t offensive linemen get W-L records? It’s a carryover from baseball, where it’s ALSO a terrible individual statistic. 10 years from now no one will be arguing Marshawn Lynch’s place in history by comparing the number of rings he earned to LaDainian Tomlinson.
Either way, please take your bullshit threadshitting accusation elsewhere. You were perfectly capable of providing a number of legitimate explanations of my post - if you need further explanation, just ask next time.
Personally, I think just the opposite. The fact that it’s NOT a big deal, that Russell Wilson isn’t a “black QB”, he’s just a QB, is a good thing. I remember hearing a little bit about how he was only the second, and it was a bit surprising, but it’s just not that big of a deal.
Also, a bit oddly, it seems that a lot of times, “black QB” isn’t just refering to a black man who is playing QB, but refers to a particular style of QB, notably one who are dangerous scrambling threats. RGIII, Kaepernick, Vick, McNabb are “black QBs”. Hell, I’ve even heard Tim Tebow refered to, on more than one ocassion, as a “white black QB”, which sounds odd, but I knew what they meant. In that regard, though Russell Wilson can run, his style isn’t the same. Fortunately, it seems like that usage has quickly fallen out of favor in the last few years with more black men playing the position that don’t fit that mold and they’re just scrambling quarterbacks or running threats or whatever.
Anyway, back on the topic more directly. I would also agree with the idea that Russell Wilson didn’t lead his team to the Super Bowl, at least not in the same way that Peyton Manning did. Russell Wilson is a serviceable quarterback who did his job well, but in the same way, you don’t hear about Trent Dilfer leading the 2000 Ravens or Brad Johnson leading the 2002 Buccaneers to their respective Super Bowl wins, but you hear plenty about the likes of Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, etc. Also considering that he was playing against one like Peyton Manning, coming off one of the best years any quarterback has ever had and his team flounders like it did, it’s going to steal some of his thunder. Thus, that it’s worked out that way, I think has little or nothing to do with race and would be virtually the same if he wasn’t black.
My apologies. Unfounded accusation humbly withdrawn.
FWIW, Wilson did lead the offense to victory, but they had the victory at least 1/2 handed to them by the defense, so your point is reasonable… just a matter of how we estimate their relative importance.
Quarterbacks are supposed to be “Offense General”… a leadership position. In my recollection, many otherwise successful quarterbacks are disrespected in football history because they weren’t actual team leaders, just passing technicians.
But other than quibbling with the premise of OP’s question, it’s perhaps heartening that NFL fans no longer find a successful team leader of minority heritage so unusual.
Certainly. I wouldn’t have called Scramblin’ Fran a “white black QB” 50 years ago. I hope we in football fandom will get beyond such ridiculousness. Rushing or scrambling skill isn’t tied to skin color.
QB is a pretty important position. As a lifelong Bronco fan, I see nothing wrong with saying Wilson led his team to victory. He’s the QB. The QB is often the face of the team.
The entire team out played Denver, tho. D, O, and ST. All contributed.
Someone’s got to be The Star, tho, it seems. I would have crowned several on Seattle’s D.
As for the “Black QB” thing being an issue, I think those days are pretty much over. Except for some bitter old schoolers who don’t enjoy the ever evolving nature of the game.
