Hapless Bills Fan

I see what you did there, yuk yuk

I actually think the Bills are one of the better tackling teams. I think the problem when they miss tackles, is that they are out of position, possibly because they make the wrong read.

Correct. One can look at an overall pattern, and say "the statistical chances that this is happening by random chance are astronomically small". But when you look at one single instance, the chances are very high that there will be plausible deniability. Even if Daboll was the preferred candidate going into the 2nd round of interviews, unless he had actually been offered and signed a contract, we're living in The Land of Ambiguity. Occasionally there is a smoking gun, but to date, we haven't seen it. Belichick's texts are probably Not That Thing, depending upon his source and what he heard.

I agree there's likely a problem of equity in hiring coordinators and head coaches in the NFL I also agree with folks that say the Rooney Rule does not appear to be effectively addressing it - and I wouldn't expect it to. I could spitball some of my thoughts, but the truth is where the inside of NFL teams and the thinking of ownership is, I'm firmly in Dunning-Krugerland I will just say that in my experience, most "affirmative action" efforts are not very effective - they are too little, too late.

We don't know that, right? And in fact, if Katharine Fitzgerald of The Buffalo News is correct that Belichick's texts were 3 days before Flores interview (Monday), then Daboll didn't even have his 2nd interview until Tuesday. It's one thing to believe or have some information that once Schoen was hired as GM, his plan was to bring Daboll with him as HC. But a plan is one thing, actually having a HC hired is another thing and there's lots of steps in between. We don't even know who Belichick's source was, and his comment to (the guy he thinks is Daboll) "hope it works out if you want it to" does not sound like knowledge of a "done deal"

Wow, all sorts of stuff here. I believe the ratio of minority coaches in college football is better than the NFL, but, I don't know about the FBS or FCS. I see a bunch of separate issues: 1) Was Flores interview with the Giants a "sham", and does texts from Belichick implying inside knowledge that they plan to hire Daboll before he's even interviewed prove it? I would say "No". a) As @The Frankish Reich pointed out in this thread, General wisdom for job seekers is "The only job offer is one that is made in writing" and for hiring managers "the hiring search ends when the candidate signs the contract". This has nothing to do with the Rooney Rule and everything to do with general hiring practice. Remember Josh McDaniels and Indy? They had the plane ready to fly him to Indy and the press conference to announce him as head coach planned, and he "left them at the alter" at the 11th hour. Or what about Byron Leftwich and the Jaguars? It was widely reported he was their guy, but it all broke down in the details, when Leftwich wanted something (a different GM) Khan wasn't prepared to give him. Even if the Giants felt Daboll was their leading candidate and planned to hire him, it might not work out in the end. And if it didn't work out, then Flores could be standing right there with his resume at the top of the pile after a great second interview. b) We don't know from those texts, what Belichick actually heard and from whom. Unless he had information directly from someone within the Giants organization who has direct hiring authority for the HC, it's just a rumor. 2) Is the Rooney Rule a sham? I dunno, but I think a better question is: is it effective? I think the evidence says "No". I don't think it's necessarily going to get Flores money over his interview with the Giants (see above), but I think it's pretty clear it's not at all effective in changing NFL hiring patterns, and giving it bigger and bigger teeth doesn't seem to be helping. I think it's "too little, too late".

It didn't ultimately hurt Daboll in this situation, true. He got the job. But think this through - if you were interviewing with a goal to obtain a promotion to the top job in your field with another organization, does it potentially help or hurt your chances if people in that organization believe they don't need to offer you the promotion, you're unhappy enough in your current job that they can get your services just by offering you a lateral move while they hire someone else? I thought it was telling that in Belichick's alleged texts to Daboll he said "hope it works out for you if you want it to" Hope it works out for you. If you want it to. That sounds a lot like "Good Luck, Soldier - You're Gonna Need It!"

Yeah, many here seem to assume that McKenzie had limited opportunities on the field because McDermott kept his thumb on him, but I don't think that's likely to be true. I think Daboll had very broad control over who was utilized, and how, on offense. McKenzie has spoken out about how nice Daboll was to him and "treated him like a son", giving him an open invitation to come anytime. But that doesn't mean Daboll saw him as a capable slot receiver. What is meant by "steal"? A lot of the players being named are free agents. Some, the Bills may not want back. Some of the players being named are under contract, and would be available only through trade. @HOUSE?

For some, that's true. I think for other owners, they do sincerely want to see their team win a Championship. For some, it may even take precedence over other factors. My point is, looking around the NFL, I don't see how an argument that winning comes first for all owners can possibly be supported.

So I just have to shake my head at this. Let's just take one point. "If racism is rampant throughout the league, owners would not employee black players." Historically, the willingness to employ people at the lowest power level in an organization does not mean that some form of prejudice is not operating in the choices for who fills the highest levels of the executive suite. It simply doesn't. We've seen this over and over and over again in field after field, where industries are perfectly willing to make use of one group at the entry level but for one or another reason don't see them as qualified for positions of power. Sometimes explicit prejudice is the reason. Sometimes it's something much more subtle, and harder to get at. Getting back to football - what makes you think all football owners want to "win at all costs"? Do you think Ralph Wilson wanted to "win at all costs" through most of his tenure? Do you think Cal McNair is focused on winning above all? Was Bill Bidwell? From the evidence I see, I don't think "win at all costs" is anything like a universal football ownership sentiment. I'm not even sure "win" is.

Do you honestly believe that? Step aside from the Rooney Rule a moment. Looking at the hiring patterns around the league where failed retread HC are given chance after chance, and young "hotshot" candidates who really haven't done too much are hired over guys with a breadth and depth of coaching experience that puts them to shame - really? Do you honestly believe that when the Jets hired Adam Gase after his record in Miami, he was legitimately the "best man for the job"? Or when the Bills hired Chan Gailey or Rex Ryan for that matter? I think coaches get hired for all sorts of reasons. -Fear of looking bad. If you got a guy who at least did a competent job as a HC in a previous stop, he might not bring in a Lombardi, but you won't get egg on your face and look like a fool. -Cronyism/Nepotism. You know a guy, or you knew his dad. You think he's a great guy, and he won a lot in a previous stop (or he's the kid of a great coach), surely that means he knows what he's doing. -Comfort level. The GM is comfortable with the guy and will work well with him. Surely that will bring good results. I think the above matches the hiring patterns we see in the NFL, far better than your "best man for the job" theory.

Well, let me ask you this. Suppose you had an opportunity to interview for your dream job. Suppose the hiring manager conveyed to you before the job something like this: "We are interviewing internal and external candidates, and other things being equal the internal candidate would be our first choice. But he's also in consideration for 6 other positions, and could decide to go elsewhere. People speak very highly of the job you've done, and we'd love the opportunity to interview you. You will get a full interview and the chance to knock our socks off and change our minds. If you want it, we'll ensure you receive constructive feedback if you aren't the successful candidate" Would you take it? Or Nah? Me, if I'm a young guy in the rise, I'd take it. I get a chance to make connections I can cultivate. I get a chance to express my ideas for the job and practice interviewing, which may help me in the future. I get a chance to learn something about how other organizations than the one I'm in handle different things, which may help me in my current job. The point is that many job interviews are just like that, except nobody speaks those things aloud. There's often an internal candidate (or preferred external candidate who has an "in" with the hiring manager) who is in the lead for the job. But you never know. You get the chance to make your pitch and "sell" the interviewers. The preferred candidate may drop out of the race for a number of reasons. The hiring manager may have another position later on and remember you. Now, about the "just going through the motions" thing, with 31/32 HC white and many retreads, the NFL's hiring practices probably need fixin'. And I agree that the Rooney Rule is too little, too late. But if job candidates were to get all snuffy at the thought that they might be going to a "sham" interview where the hiring team already has their preferred candidate, very few would honestly take place.

Agree. (I think you mean "respectably")

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/denver-broncos-announce-theyre-up-for-sale-ending-38-years-of-ownership-by-bowlen-family/ https://www.denverpost.com/2022/02/02/nfl-top-10-purchase-prices-broncos-sale/ They are indeed, but prefer a more credible source than McAfee

When one looks around at the result of only one black HC in the NFL, despite numerous long-time black assistants, it's hard to feel that hiring is equitable. That said: it's not uncommon in every job that the hiring manager(s) may have an internal candidate who they prefer, and who will likely get the job unless an external candidate just overwhelmingly wows the interview panel, or the internal candidate has some dirty laundry that gets uncovered and a Really Bad Interview Day, or the internal candidate turns down the job offer to take a different position. It's usually not overt "-ism" that's the reason for this: when you know someone and know 100% for sure how they treat people and how they behave OTJ, you feel more confident that if you hire them, they'll do a good job. And it's not a "sham" to interview other people anyway, because they may knock your socks off, or the top candidate may go elsewhere. And it doesn't sit well with many of us, every single season.

Well, we don't know how Flores reacted to that suggestion. But: His 2019 OC was Chad O'Shea, who he knew in NE as WR coach. In 2020 his OC was Chan Gailey - I'm not sure what Chan's connections to Flores may be, but he would certainly count as an "old white retread" In 2021, he promoted 2 internal assistant coaches to co-offensive coordinator So one wonders just how open-ended and inclusive Flores own coordinator searches might have been, and whether anyone had an interview after the staff identified a preferred candidate, because in general, Flores hiring practices look like retread/cronyism hires.

See above text from Marcel L-J asserting Flores has "corroborating evidence" and witnesses.

I don't know about anyone saying the ratio should be equal or close, but when there are 32 head coaches and only 1 is black, despite a fairly large number of long-time black assistant coaches, it does make most people go "hmmmmm". Then there are two recent cases where a black coach who was hired seems to have been given a mightly short leash (Culley, Vance Joseph). I thought based on the team's record and development, Flores did not deserve to be fired. It sounds as though it was a case of "pissed in bosses wheaties", not coaching competence (but of course, that will get you fired from any job).

Agree. And it sounds as though Flores is aware of this. And, as posted elsewhere, I think the real problem is that prior experience (even if it comes with a terrible track record) and cronyism/nepotism/"comfort level" hiring is pervaisive. Simply requiring that minorities be interviewed is too little, too late to address that. The Broncos weren't racist when they hired Vance Joseph, and the Texans weren't racist when they hired David Culley, but wouldn't you agree it was eyebrow-raising and unusual to pull the plug on those guys after only one season? It's a damned short leash, especially for Culley who did better than expected with a depleted Texans roster. Other incompetent coaches have gotten 2-3 years to show what they can (or can't) do, and even 2 years was considered possibly unfair in the case of Wrex Ryan "coaches won't want to take the Pegulas job if they keep this up".

Two minority candidates from outside the organization, one of which must be in person. See above - need 2 outside the organization, and one in- person interview. Katharine Fitzgerald wrote a pretty good article about it: https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/bills-oddly-part-of-brian-flores-lawsuit-against-nfl-giants-heres-how/article_8dce85bc-83ae-11ec-a431-2300176271c0.html The thing I don't understand, is that she says the Bellycheat texts were from 3 days prior to Flores scheduled interview on Thurs. This tracker has dates and stuff https://www.profootballnetwork.com/2022-nfl-head-coach-tracker-latest-news-rumors/ Daboll was interviewed in person (2nd interview) on Tuesday January 25. Flores was interviewed in person (2nd interview) on Thursday January 27th. So if she's correct about the texts, Belichick did his "wrong text" fest on Monday, before Daboll interviewed for the 2nd time.

I don't think there will ever be consensus on any issue, and it's pretty typical that the loudest voices are not necessarily the majority view. That said when I say "we all know what's going on", I think that even people who don't believe that equitable NFL coach hiring is a problem, would, if questioned about some specific cases, admit that they recognize the coaching choice was pre-determined and any interview process of other candidates was a sham. Jon Gruden being hired as the HC of the Raiders would be one example. That's what I mean by saying "we already know it (sham interviews where the hire is known) is going on". I'm not doubting you, but that's a much higher figure than I've seen elsewhere - can you share your source? And of course, right now there is only one (Tomlin) - and a couple of recently hired minority HC's were fired after 1 year, which many people regard as way too short of a time to have a fair chance at building a team and culture.

There are rumors saying that Shea Tierney and (I believe, assistant OL coach) Ryan Wendell will follow Daboll to the NY Giants. https://www.nj.com/giants/2022/02/nfl-rumors-giants-brian-daboll-bringing-position-coach-with-him-from-bills.html I don't know how grounded they were - obviously, the rumors that Dorsey would follow him as his OC were wrong, but the rumors about Bobby Johnson were correct (Bobby Johnson is still pictured on the Bills web page and labeled as OL coach). I would think they might want Dorsey to take on an OL coach and a QB coach with more experience than Tierney and Wendell.

Aren't we all? IMHO...Daboll had a learning curve his first 2 years about situationally appropriate game management and play calling. Given that Dorsey actually has experience playing QB in the NFL, it will be interesting to see if he brings a different perspective.

Well. More than one thing can be true. The NFL almost certainly stuck in a biased and inequitable hiring pattern for top coaches. There are only 32 of these positions. The owners and CEOs want to feel comfortable and confident about their coaching hires. What people do most of us feel most confident can do a job competently? Someone who has done it before! What people do most of us feel most comfortable with? Usually, with people who are "like us" in some way - have some commonality of background, education, patterns of speech, jokes, whatever. We "click" with some people and don't "click" with others, and usually don't put a lot of thought into why. So we have a pattern in the NFL of hiring "retreads" - coaches who have done it before - and also of hiring the people the owner or GM (or whoever has the hiring authority) feels most comfortable with. Then HCs want to hire coordinators they've worked with and feel most comfortable with. There's also nepotism and cronyism - do we really think Steve Belichick got play calling responsibilities after an open search for the best talent? Or Britt Reid was the best LB coach? I don't think it needs a "whistleblower" to know that a lot of owners seem to have fixated on a new coaching hire probably before the old one gets the axe. Gruden and Urben Meyer would be two examples. The Rooney rule has just been treated as an inconvenient formality and circumvented in all kinds of superficial ways (which Florio enumerated in his PFT piece on the topic if anyone is interested). Which is why the NFL raised the bar on the Rooney rule to say there must be two external minority candidates and an in-person interview with one external minority candidate. But it obviously isn't helping too much so far, because it doesn't change the fundamental pattern of a limited number of decision makers, choosing coaches who have either "done it before", or who they feel most comfortable with. If the NFL really wants to foster diversity at the upper levels of coaching, it needs a very different strategy than the Rooney Rule. I think minority coaches have a perfect right to be mad as hell and to want there to be a more equitable hiring process which gives talented young coaches in general a more realistic chance at a hire. That said, I think Flores lawsuit (on the face of it) is not going to accomplish too much. Some depends upon what's behind Belichick's texts and so forth, but companies do continue with a series of interviews even after they have identified a leading candidate those involved in the search want to hire, so it would be a pretty high burden of proof to establish that the later interviews are a "sham". It is, of course, always possible that a later interview will knock everyone's socks off and change the picture. So I don't think it really sheds much light - we already know it's going on - and I'm not sure what it will change. But it will make a hell of a stir.

Where did the Giants admit to it? https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/01/giants-brian-flores-was-a-serious-candidate-we-hired-the-coach-we-felt-was-most-qualified/ Flores contends that the interview was a sham, but the Giants responded by saying that Flores was a serious candidate for the job. “We are pleased and confident with the process that resulted in the hiring of Brian Daboll,” the statement said. “We interviewed an impressive and diverse group of candidates. The fact of the matter is, Brian Flores was in the conversation to be our head coach until the eleventh hour. Ultimately, we hired the individual we felt was most qualified to be our next head coach.” Bills defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier, Giants defensive coordinator Patrick Graham, Cowboys defensive coordinator Dan Quinn, and Bengals defensive coordinator Lou Anarumo also interviewed for the Giants before Daboll was hired. Frazier and Graham are Black and the NFL’s Rooney Rule requires teams to interview at least two external minority candidates for head coaching openings but Flores’ suit contends that they were not under real consideration for the job. Unless we know exactly what Belichick heard and from whom, we really don't know that the Giants, in fact, made a hiring decision prior to Flores interview. And if they did, they very likely won't admit to it. On Pro Football Talk, Mike Florio claims that most owners (75%) already know who they want to hire next before they make their decision to fire the current coach. That would make most interview processes an "equal opportunity sham": both the white and the minority candidates are working with a stacked deck where the winning card is already known. I think this is still true in some cases (Raiders hiring Gruden; Jacksonville hiring Urban), but in others, the process is more open and a legitimate open search is conducted. (I don't think the Pegulas knew they wanted to hire McDermott when they fired Ryan, for example). My guess would be that Mara legitimately was very interested in hiring Flores, and had his FO people talking to Flores (for example, the Jan 11 text conversation where McDonnell supposedly said that Daboll might leave Buffalo for a lateral move). But once they hired Joe Schoen as GM, he may have stipulated for a strong voice or maybe the deciding voice in hiring the HC, and he had a different set of names that started with Brian Daboll, and included Leslie Frazier. TBH, I think Schoen wanted an offensive guy, and Daboll was his top choice - and actually, the only offensive coach they interviewed.