Orton's Arm

Yeah, I got a little carried away. At the end, I could hardly believe that my response was several times longer than the Fake Fat post to which I was replying!

It's a little more complex than that. Several factors are at work: - Some countries have lower wages than the U.S. Free trade encourages job migration to these countries. This is less of an issue in the auto industry though, as Japanese wage rates are if anything a little higher than here in the U.S. - Management is often a problem. This is a HUGE issue for American car companies. - Unions can be part of the problem too, imposing extra costs on companies. An adversarial relationship between union and management can really hurt a company. - Tax law can be a problem. If a company buys a new machine, it doesn't get to write the expense all at once. It must do so over many years. This makes it harder for American companies to compete in industries which require big, expensive machines. - In the 1950s, the Japanese government made it so that its citizens could put their money into savings accounts, and not have to pay taxes on the interest. The people responded by putting a ton of money into these accounts. Japanese banks then lent this money to Japanese companies, which used the money to buy big, expensive machines for their factories. - Because Japanese companies pay a much lower interest rate on their debt than American companies, Japan has been able to dominate the U.S. in every industry focused on big, expensive machines (Televisions, stereos, cameras, other electronics, RAM manufacturing, cars, etc.) - Excessive regulations and red tape can be part of the problem too: the more people a company must hire to do paperwork, the less economically viable it becomes. - Excessive litigation is also a source of problems. It's been estimated that each additional lawyer added to the economy destroys $1 million a year in economic value. Given that the U.S. has 75% of the world's lawyers, you can clearly see where this would be a problem. - Steadily expanding government spending (as a percent of GDP) robs the private sector of the resources needed to create jobs. - Inadequate investment in transportation infrastructure is a big part of the problem. If you want your own trucking company, go ahead and buy or lease a truck. The government will do the rest. But if you want your own rail company, you must first buy your own land, lay down your own rails, pay property taxes on said land (which is insane), buy your own trains, and then you're good to go. Needless to say, such measures have needlessly harmed the U.S. rail infrastructure; and things are much better in Europe and Japan. Moreover, U.S. rail companies are also harmed by the aforementioned things which discourage large capital investments. - As I've detailed in other posts, U.S. employment law creates needless obstacles to employers finding the right candidates. The absence of tort reform is another obstacle, making it almost impossible for employers to communicate with each other about how people did in their past jobs. - The American population is changing, and workplace theft or laziness are probably bigger issues now than in the past. - With earmarked spending programs up by a factor of ten since the mid '80s, and with legislation growing more complex (and unjust) by the minute, it's clear that political lobbying skill is becoming increasingly important. It's all too possible for a politically savvy company to drive out a more economically useful competitor. - While the massive Third World immigration the U.S. has chosen to allow certainly drives down labor costs for specific companies, studies demonstrate these immigrants impose more costs than they save. - China has used currency manipulation to largely capture the furniture and other industries. To make a long story short, it is abundantly clear U.S. policy is not designed to promote economic efficiency or economic vitality. Instead of launching a dozen crusades on individual issues, it would be better for the American people to demand systemic reform. Only with a government whose interests are truly aligned with those of the people, can America truly hope to build the kind of strong economy that creates jobs. Until that day arrives, expect this country to continue importing people while exporting jobs.

I think Levy was his own first choice, which Mularkey kind of figured out after he'd worked with him a few days.

They weren't.

I'd agree that MOST fans are unable to separate fact from passion. But ALL the fans I've seen have, when mentioning Schoop, been negative about him. Maybe there are facts to back that emotion up.

Maybe you're right to say he wasn't part of the problem. Only thing is, I've yet to see a Chicago fan agree with you.

Kevin Gilbride was asked to describe the way he drives his car. "Hey, I always pass." He was asked to describe his performance in school. "Hey, I always pass." He was asked to describe his playcalling . . . "Hey, at least I'm better than John Schoop!"

Not to rain on your parade, but I'm pessimistic about the talent level the Bills could have for 2006 even they do "go nuts in FA and the draft." First, look at the guys TD drafted, who have turned into proven starters: - Evans - McGahee - Schobel - Crowell - Clements - McGee That's just six guys, none of whom has proven himself above average for a starter. Even throwing in a few UDFAs like Peters, and guys who might prove something next year (Losman, Everett, Preston) you're still not talking a whole lot of young talent. That leaves all those free agents TD signed. The same veteran core that went 5-11 this year, and that will be a year older and slower come next season. Mainstays of the Bills' 31st ranked defense such as Milloy and Vincent are on their last legs, with players such as Coy Wire waiting in the wings to replace them. One of the defense's best young players--Nate Clements--may not be here next year. Eric Moulds may be released for salary cap reasons, to be replaced by someone like Sam Aiken. The cupboard is looking awfully empty, my friend.

I looked closely at the data your post provided. What I was looking for what a clear pattern: when Jauron shows up, does a defense get better or worse? What happens when he leaves? No clear pattern emerged. Moreover, I don't know enough about the teams he coached in to gauge their talent levels, the strength of opposing offenses, or their injury situations. Take Chicago's defense this year. It was rated #1 in terms of points allowed, and #2 for yards allowed. But was it really a top 2 defense? I don't think so: it was more a question of having a schedule that pitted it against very few good offensive teams. The Panthers had a much easier time dealing with Chicago's defense in the playoffs, than they did dealing with Seattle's.

Looking at today's Jauron hire, it seems you've been proven right.

One of the key issues in this thread is what the racial composition of the pool of qualified coaches looks like. Some of those who argue for more racially-based hiring practices say that the racial composition of head coaches should be like the racial composition of players in the NFL generally. This opinion is unreasonable because: 1. Not all successful head coaches are former players 2. Not all players are fit to be head coaches To show how the latter point affects the racial composition of the pool of qualified head coaching candidates, I'll start by making two assumptions: 1. The average black person is as intelligent as the average white person. 2. The average black person is more athletic than the average white person. Taken together, these assumptions mean that: 1. All else being equal, the percentage of blacks in the NFL will be higher than in the general population. 2. The subset of players fit to be coaches will more closely resemble the general population's racial composition, than it does the racial composition of the league. This second point is true because almost no white people are athletically gifted enough to get by on athleticism alone. So the sample of white people the NFL has collected is skewed to eliminate stupid whites, motivation-issue whites, etc. The ones who didn't get weeded out generally possess positive qualities that can carry over into coaching. But the more athleticism you have, the more you can get by with a lower I.Q., or a worse work ethic, or a lower level of toughness. Because black people are disproportionately able to use athleticism to cover over other weaknesses, the sample of black people the NFL has collected will do a better job of reflecting the general black population than the sample of whites it's collected does at reflecting the general white population. Only the smartest, most passionate, and hardest-working whites are able to play in the NFL, because these traits are needed to overcome a lack of elite athleticism. But while many black players likewise use intelligence, work ethic, etc. to overcome lack of athleticism, many others use athleticism to overcome a lack of intelligence. Those in this latter category are not part of the pool of qualified coaching candidates. Do you really want Leon Lett in the coaching booth, trying to win a chess match against Charlie Weis? I didn't think so. Do you want Deion Sanders trying to instill a sense of toughness and good tackling on your defense? I don't either. Do you want Sam Adams, who himself has struggled with motivation issues, to be the one to get your team to show up and play hard each week? Me neither. Those three men used elite athleticism to have long and successful careers, despite having limitations that will keep them from ever being successful coaches. On the other hand, you have black players like Tony Dungy. He had a good work ethic, lots of toughness, and a good head on his shoulders. He didn't need to use athleticism to mask other weaknesses. But players like that represent a much lower percentage of the black player pool than they do of the white player pool, because a better job was done of getting rid of stupid/lazy/soft whites before they could get into the NFL.

I'm not going to address Fake Fat's posts point by point, because I don't want to get lost in a sea of text. Instead, I'll make the following points: 1. You don't create a meritocracy by emphasizing race. You do so by emphasizing merit. 2. Affirmative action programs, in settings outside the NFL, have placed needless restrictions on employers' ability to measure merit. 3. To some extent employment in the NFL is based on connections not merit. Qualified coaches of both races have been passed over to make room for less skilled but better connected men such as Rich Kotite. Some advocate solving this problem by trying to help the qualified but unconnected black candidates, while doing nothing for the qualified but unconnected white candidates. Such plans are unjust.

Is Nick Ferguson really that bad a player?

Your point would be a valid one if we were talking about numbers instead of ratios. Let's say we don't know anything about the number of qualified black coaches, except that it's greater than 100. And let's say we don't know anything about the number of qualified white coaches, except that it's greater than 1000. Can we use these very vague numbers to clearly conclude the NFL's hiring policies are racist? No!

Agreed.

I'm not sure that Indians or Asians are worse off than whites, but certainly they're not better off. It turns out racial employment laws, as implemented in the U.S., actually make it harder to establish a meritocracy. Let's say you as an employer adopted some kind of test to give all your applicants. Unless protected minorities do as well on this test as whites, you'll have to prove to a skeptical court that your test is directly related to the position you're hiring for. Most intellectual aptitude tests produce somewhat racially skewed results, so you can't use them unless you like the idea of spending time in court. You can't rule out people with felony convictions, unless you're going to make the case to the court that the particular felony conviction in question directly relates to the position at hand. Because employment law creates artificial obstacles to employers using standard tests to determine merit, it's more tempting for them to base hiring decisions on connections instead. Yet another obstacle to a meritocracy is that it's too easy to sue an employer for discrimination. If, as an employer, you're afraid of getting hauled into court based on turning someone down, then maybe you're going to be less willing to interview a lot of people. The whole connection system gets you a smaller pool of people to work with, each of whom is individually less likely to sue. There are other countries that haven't turned their employment law into a circus, which is one of the reasons you see so many jobs leaving the U.S.

There are a number of reasons why people don't attack the privileges of the elite, most of them practical. One of the biggest is that anyone with the power to attack the elite is, by definition, part of that selfsame elite. For such a person, a successful crusade would mean reduced opportunities for their own children and family members. Few people are that idealistic. It's a lot easy to set up a racial quota for a company, than it is to figure out what percentage of applicants were hired based on connections. Those who oppose affirmative action often feel that you can't legislate meritocracy, so the best the government can do is to stay out of the private sector's hiring practices. There is a third reason why there isn't more of a push towards a meritocracy. Say you launched a crusade against the unfairness of the current, connections-based system. Maybe you'd want television coverage for your efforts. But are the people who make decisions over at the T.V. network using their own connections to help their family members? Will this influence their decision to cover you? Will their advertisers (who also may be using connections) put pressure on them? Maybe you should publish a book instead. But maybe the CEO of a book publishing company pulled a few strings to get his son a job that he didn't really deserve. To what extent will that affect his decision to publish a book about your crusade?

What signs are those? 50 years ago, the average record for an NFL team was .500. Guess what it'll be next year? .500. What about white coaches like John Fox or Charlie Weis, who also didn't get the head coaching jobs they deserved when they deserved them? One of the reasons Weis was put on hold was that he didn't have maybe the same connections as some less competent coaches hired ahead of him. You're dead wrong about this. Take two different companies. Company A allocates 80% of its open positions to the well-connected, while leaving 20% for the best qualified. If this company adopts an affirmative action program, most of those 20% merit positions will go to minority candidates, leaving white, merit-based candidates out to dry. Company B is a strict meritocracy, and it doesn't matter who you know there. If this company adopts an affirmative action program, more qualified white candidates will be excluded to make room for less qualified minority candidates. The ONLY way an affirmative action can lead to more of a meritocracy is if a company chooses to reduce the importance of connections while at the same time implementing the affirmative action program. This course of action seems unlikely at best. Rich Kotite is a good example of a coach who used networking to make up for his less than stellar performance. Better qualified coaches--including a number of white coaches--were excluded from head coaching positions to make room for him. In today's NFL, there is still room for the well-connected but mediocre head coach.

I pretty much agree with this list. Except that I'd move Evans into McGee's spot, and I'd rank McGahee a notch or two higher.

You are spot-on with this post.

First, it seems like you're equating "progress" with the idea of increasing the number of blacks by decreasing the number of whites. I take issue with that. The real definition of progress is a system in which people are hired strictly based on merit. Second, you point to affirmative action as a way of dealing with the injustices of the old boy network. I vehemently disagree. Let's say there's a company with ten openings. Nine of them are allocated to white people with good connections. The tenth hasn't yet been spoken for. So along comes an affirmative action program, which states that one new hire out of ten must be a minority. You know the nine connected people aren't being squeezed out, so that leaves the white guy trying to get in on merit to give up his place. This problem has made it all but impossible for a non-connected white or Asian male to get into an Ivy League school.

Evans is a better receiver than McGee is a CB. But I guess you also have to take into account McGee as a return man.

You may not be sure which, but I am!

It's not that I've given up on him, but I admit to entertaining doubts. I think Lee Evans has a better shot at becoming the next Steve Smith than Willis McGahee does of becoming the next LaDanian Tomlinson. Also, a WR's career lasts longer than a RB's, so that makes a young receiver more valuable than a young RB.

If you stopped to actually think about my question before posting your reply, you'd realize it wasn't inane. Basically, I'm asking which of TD's draft picks people think has the most to offer the team going forward. Obviously older picks like Clements or Schobel have had the chance to prove more than younger guys like Losman or Everett. By asking which player people would keep, I'm trying to level the playing field a little.