whatdrought

My bad, didn't mean to ignore that. It's a good point and really reveals the issue with the situation. In order to look at, say the Giants, hiring a white coach over a black coach and cry foul, you have to simultaneously accuse the owner/decision maker of racism (be it intentional or unintentional) while also saying that the white coach is less qualified than the black coach. Those are just rabbit holes that are really sketchy to go down, in my opinion. Do you have a limited, almost non-existent sports background? If so, you may be just the guy ESPN is looking for!

This I can get behind. Call it the "Blind jacka**" rule each ref squad has to have one blind jacka** on the field at all times to kick refs in the head when they make terrible mistakes. It also works because the refs are bound to get along nicely with said blind jacka**** as they have so much in common.

So, I got to thinking about this, cause it is a good point that he makes. And I looked at his history with the Bungles. During his 15 year run, he had minority candidates represented in his top three assistants only about 12% of the time. Another way of looking at it is that he hired 3 minority coaches, to 8 white coaches. So my question is, did he do this because of their race, or was he simply picking the best possible candidate each time? These are cheap statistics that may not actually mean much in the conversation, but i found it interesting. Also, as a random aside - did you know the Bengals have had the same ST coordinator since 2003? That's insane!! Guys, chill out. This thread has been civil while having rational conversations about dissenting opinions and has as of yet, given the mods no reason to shut it down. Don't be the reason that changes.

This seems like a really interesting idea, but I can't see it working or helping the problem at all... The reason being, we can't trust the NFL to do anything right. And now we want to create a control on the hiring process (whether or not they hire someone from the list). This further creates the issue, imagine that list is disseminated and on it is 4 minority candidates and 12 white candidates. Of the 5 vacancies that off-season, 3 white coaches are hired off the list, 1 white coach is hired from the college rank, and 1 white coach is promoted from within in his own org. Where any of the 5 vacancies filled because of race? Ask the owners- they each hired the man they considered the best fit for their plans for the organization. Ask the media- the owners are racist. We're back at square one. The problem becomes this: Without proving causation, we cannot assume correlation. Without some specific example of a minority coach being passed over for a white coach who is clearly inferior, and the cause being clearly racism, the dog don't hunt. Statistics and averages are well and good until you get to the nitty gritty. This isn't the group of owners legislating that no more than 10% of coaches be minorities. These are individual actors and organizations seeking (presumably) what is best for the future of their team- without a preponderance of evidence that there is nefarious intent, we're spinning our wheels, it would seem. These examples ignore the minutiae of the situations represented (which is really what happens when we start using race as evidence) Smith was deep in his time as Bears HC and had always been good, not great. the year they went 10-6 they started 7-1 and missed the playoffs. It was over there for him. He then went 8-24 in two years with the Bucs, so it's hard to argue that he was a top flight HC at that time. Wilkes was a disaster in Arizona, and that team has improved decently well since they moved on from him. I don't think there's much of an argument from a football standpoint that that was a miscarriage of justice. The Caldwell situation is a puzzling one, but I think it's a stretch to assume bad management practices are evidence of racism. The lions are just poorly run right now, much like the Redskins, Bengals, and other teams who have had minority coaches invoked in their organizations. You can also point to guys like Marvin Lewis, Vance Joseph, and even, I think Anthony Lynn this year as minority coaches that have gotten more than their fair shake of opportunities without producing. I think it has to be seen in context. I agree that the lack of intellectual diversity is as much of a problem as a lack of racial diversity- teams (specifically owners from previous generations) refuse to innovate and go outside of what they've always done which leaves good candidates on both sides of the color spectrum to be left out of opportunities. They're not subjective though. There has to be some reason for the hire, and while you can argue that some hires make more sense than others, it's really hard to argue that coach x is more qualified than coach y and is getting passed over for his racial identity. Shumur was seen as a hot coaching candidate after his time in Minny, it wasn't a surprise that he got another chance (many didn't put the blame for that Cleavland run on him in the first place). Now, if next year a team has him and Eric Bienemy on their short list and go with Shumur instead, that's cause for pause. The Cardinals are a really bad example for this situation, i think. They fired their minority coach and replaced him with a huge question mark and they instantly went from a doormat to a marginally competitive team (with a black QB taken 1st overall no less). To me that just shows that Kliff is more qualified and a better coach than Wilkes. I don't see that as an argument for racist intent.

12-4, first round bye, Josh MVP. Super Bowl Victory.

I get the idea behind the rule, and there are some solid points here. I just can't help but go back to "but who?" Several teams have changed hands as of late, and as far as I know those sales were open to everyone regardless of race, class, gender, or creed. In coaching and GM it's still the same situation, what minority candidates are getting passed over for inferior people? Doug Whaley got fired for a white guy, I don't think anyone here would say that was the Pegulas (who didn't hire whaley, If I remember correctly) acting negatively towards Whaley due to his minority status. I have no reason to believe that the owners (perhaps some outliers) are closet racists who go out of their way to avoid hiring minorities. I think, in fact, that most would be glad to hire minorities if it ensured that they'd be the ones listening to Terry Bradshaws stupid jokes on the podium with the Lombardi in their hands. I guess my bottom line is this: the positions of power should be filled by those most qualified to hold them (and those who have earned them to begin with). Qualifications have nothing to do with racial heritage. If there is a process that ensures that all qualified candidates get an equal chance to via for those positions, great. The Rooney Rule doesn't seem to do that, but that's my take on it. Furthermore, equality of racial make up cannot be the goal. If it was, the NFL should do the Rooney rule 2.0 and take 30% of Owner, GM, and HC jobs at random and assign minorities to those posts. Right now, my beef with the system is that you end up with minority candidates getting sham interviews, and you end up with men who have earned a chance to be a HC getting attacked in the media because they got the job over a minority candidate. It seems to exacerbate racial tensions, and it helps nobody. I also fundamentally disagree with any person being granted any opportunity or preeminence over anyone else due to their skin color. Be it whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. When it comes to school admissions, when it comes to jobs, when it comes to anything- look at the individual and their qualifications and leave race out of it.

I don't have a ton of knowledge in that regard so I won't debate it. I do hesitate when I see things like "institutional racism" and "implicit racism" because there is no real way to combat those, if they are a problem. Without examples of that racism, we can't fight against it. If there's a highschool coach whose pushing black young men towards skill positions with racist intent, I think we can all band together and do what it takes to stop that. It's just hard to use generalities and phrases that encompass wide swaths because that can derail the productivity of the conversation. I personally wonder what the affect of Black guys typically being better athletes has on the conversation. When I coached little league, the QB was essentially center 2.0 who handed the ball to whatever star athlete we had at the time and rarely ever passed. Those star athletes 8 out of 10 times were black. I wonder if that creates a channelling of talent into the skill positions at the young age... I don't have anything other than my observations on that though so take it for what it's worth. Yeah, it's all good to disagree! I appreciate getting to chat with you! Do try to disagree respectfully. @TheProcess has been very respectful in his discourse- no need to get chippy. ?

But which Minority candidates? It's also not black and white like that (pun slightly intended, lol). There are bad coaches, no doubt. But at the time of their hire they weren't bad coaches. They made sense on some level or another. Vance Joseph (black), Freddy Kitchens (White), Steve Wilkes (Black), Pat Shumur (White), Todd Bowles (Black), Chip Kelly (White). None of these people, I would argue, were hired because of their skin color. They were hired because they were perceived to be the best bet for the job. Unfortunately for them, the owners, and the fans, that perception was wrong. Meh, I'd be interested in the statistics of that, but where minority candidates are coming for seems like a deeper level of conversation than we can handle in this thread today- Though there may be something to the process down the line- that I'm not familiar with as much. Rhule was universally (edit: universally may be strong, but very heavily) regarded as the top coaching candidate the past two years. Those other guys will likely get a chance some time, but what you've said is not at all evidence that they are clearly better candidates than the others. Kliff Kingsbury was also from college, more of a longshot than Rhule, and had a decent Freshmen season. It happens, and one candidate can't really be seen as superior to the others from the outside, at least not with the information we have. Judge was the ST coordinator for years in NE. A very very good ST unit while he was there. The WR's struggled, but my guess is he got the job more on his merits as ST coordinator. Andrew Hawkins, a black former WR posted a thread about how wise it is to get a good ST coach for a head coach. It could be a miss, but time will tell. It reminds me of the John Harbaugh hire. Again, no real concrete evidence that he's a worse candidate than either of those guys. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's really impossible for us to understand the minutiae involved in that process. But that's the proof in the pudding, there are questionable decisions made on both sides of the racial aisle, so to speak. It's a business with human movers and shakers.

All this talk about Tomlin reminds me of reading about him getting started with Tony Dungy in Tampa Bay. Dungy had on his staff, Lovie Smith, Herm Edwards, Tomlin, Monte Kiffin, Rod Marinelli and a bunch of other stud coaches. Dungy's book is a great look at building that staff and team.

Well the closed-mindedness of decision makers when it comes to innovation (irregardless of race) is another conversation in of itself, but there are guys all over the racial spectrum who suffer as a result of that. That's more to do with people not being willing to bend, but you don't see rules demanding that owners interview candidates who run a different offensive scheme than their last guy. Innovation wins. Look at the Cardinals. They took a massive risk to get someone "new" and outside the norm and it worked (with mixed results) for them. I guess my thing is, why do we need a rule to dictate who gets interviews when the reality is that owners open to innovation will find the innovators. I actually think he is really qualified from what I've read. As for those two, I don't really know as I'm not the owner. But I don't have, nor have I seen, any reason to believe that the owner of the Panthers chose his head coach because of his race. As far as I am concerned, and until it can be demonstrated otherwise, he did so with the intention of getting the best possible coach for his football team (Tepper coming from Pittsburgh is one that I am sure is fine with Minority candidates if they are the right guy for the job).

1- 13% right now, which is low statistically speaking, but statistics are somewhat lacking as you still have to have sound arguments for which of the other 87% are inferior to xMinority candidate. It was much higher just a couple years ago, but guys like Vance Joseph and Steve Wilks were fired due to being horrible HC's. 2- I disagree that that proves that premise, but I don't want to argue Kap and derail this. 3- I mean, that seems like a stretch. Matt Rhule was a linebacker, Ron Rivera a defensive coach, Joe Judge a STer, and Mike McCarthy a TE. I would imagine (without doing the grunt work) that there probably isn't a huge majority of former QB's at HC in the league now. 4- But what standard indicates they're better suited for that? Bienemy doesn't call plays in KC (which was true of Pederson and Nagy as well, with mixed results so far, I would say), and Leftwhich just coached a QB to the first 30td/30int season in NFL history (not that I blame him for that, but he was also the OC in Arizona last year... yikes). Also, Bienemy did get interviewed by the Giants and the Panthers. I'm not sure what differentiates these two from the ones you named, and if they were all purple we wouldn't be having this conversation. That last sentence I can agree on, but i don't think it has anything to do with race. I'm fine having a healthy discussion and being willing to see all the perspectives, but I'm not pro-feelings when it comes to things such as this... This is a big deal and I think it needs to be engaged with varifiable proofs and evidence in order to truly be handled. It's not good enough that it feels like there is disparity, it needs to be proved in order to be attacked and handled. But isn't this just the point? Is there a player there that universally is accepted as a good QB prospect who never got a fair shake at it? A guy being asked to switch positions could be because of racism, or it could be because he's just not that good... Nobody asked Patrick Mahomes to switch positions because his arm talent (though erratic coming out) was seen as such a plus side that he was worth developing. If a white Cornerback is too slow to play in the NFL and gets switched to Safety or something like that, is it racist, or is it practical? You've also got on your list guys who did play, and are now in the hall of fame. Warren Moon, Steve McNair, Doug Williams (not HOF, but SB winning). I guess it just doesn't seem like a list composed of guys who were deprived a chance because of their skin color.

Hey @MAJBobby - any chance you can link previous segments as you go so they build on each other?

This is a side of it I never considered.... Intriguing.

Would you do me a favor and use specifics instead of generalities? In the last, say, 20 years, whose a black QB that was deprived a chance even though he merited it? Same for a black coach that deserved a chance as a HC? Not busting your chops here, just really curious. This conversation cannot happen in generalities. It has to be specifics or else it's just pandering.

That's where I think this really get's disasterous... Right now there are people who are saying Joe Judge got hired in NY over Eric Bieniemy because of his race. Without substantial evidence and proof of this, how is that not just complete BS? How can you make that accusation without any real factual proof? It's garbage. Another good point, and something I've always wondered... How does a minority candidate not wonder if they're simply the box checker when they get the call for an interview (especially in cases where it's obvious the team has their guy in mind). Seems like the thought would have to exist?... I dunno man.

It’s rare for me to be so completely sure about something and then look back and be like “damn, I was wrong.” That’s one of em. I was telling my dad (big Steelers fan) all offseason about how Tomlin was gonna be revealed to be a bad coach and get fired, and how the SB can only take him so far. Now, if I was a Steelers fan, I’d be pumped about him leading the team into the future. He showed that he can get players to play and that the “talent” and drama isn’t the important thing. On a a side note, i’d Love for them to draft one of those project QB’s in the second round (Jacob Eason, Jordan Love, Jalen Hurts) and go crazy after Ben is done.

Just feels like when you’ve been dating the high maintenance, always on social media, always shopping, always arguing with people and being toxic girl, only to end up with the more down to earth “girl next door,” kinda nerdy girl. ?

I think it should be discussed, and I think the mods will let it ride if it stays football based and respectful. *fingers crossed* twitter is all bent out of shape on this subject these days and it is definitely a powder keg.

And he’s done damn well for himself. I was certain this would be the end of the Tomlin era, but man he really made lemonade. Changed my opinion of him as a coach for sure.

Almost made a thread on this earlier, but wasn’t sure how it would go over. The flak now is is that the rule isn’t resaulting in many minorities being hired. Technically speaking, something like 20% of the open positions have been filled with a minority candidate this year (Rivera in WSH) which is not all that much lower than the 30% minority makeup of the US. The problem, and the argument that Stephen A. and others don’t seem to want to engage regarding this, is that you can’t debate the Rooney rule and the lack of minority coaches in a racial vaccum. You have to present actual examples of minority coaches who are more deserving of the position being passed over. That’s kinda hard to do, I think. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that any time you look at anything but qualifications for a job or position, you break the system. This anger about minorities not being respresented has to intrinsically include an accusation that an owners racism is worth more to them than winning. That’s a hard pill to swallow.

I’d be happy with Hooper or Henry. Also, Harrison Bryant in the later rounds would be great. He’s from the same school as Singletary so they may want to dip into that well again.

Ugh. I prefer to imagine the Rex years don’t exist.

Shenault is my pick as well. If Daboll is here, he's gonna look at the versatility and drool.

The semantics is the entirety of our conversation. You misused the term upside which is where I entered the conversation. As for the fumbling, that's a good breakdown. The problem is that in a lot of his fumbles, he does have the ball tucked away properly, he just loses it when hit. Many NFL players struggle with fumbles and are able to be taught (and trained) how better to hold the ball and keep a grip on it. That's a trainable thing. The decision making that needs to improve in that regard is his knowledge of when to give up on a scramble. That's something he needs to be better about, No doubt about it.

I see you're still at your shtick... Whatever keeps you warm at night.