Nate Burleson Speaks On The Firing Of African American Coaches

[SinceThe70s]

13 minutes ago, klos63 said:

I think the issue isn't necessarily that you are fired because of skin color, but is the leash shorter? are the opportunities fewer?  Listening to Burleson, I think that's his viewpoint.

 

First off: Happy New Year!

 

I don't know how you separate the reason you get fired as a HC with how long you held the job. The leash is always short and there are different reasons why you get fired. Bowles should have been fired from the Jets as quickly as Rex was from the Bills IMO. The fact that Bowles lasted as long as he did was astounding, but I doubt had anything to do with the color of his skin. Beyond pure speculation and the one year tenure is there any reason to believe the Wilks firing was racially motivated?

 

Opportunity speaks to hiring not firing. Using a coaches firing as a platform to decry their lack of opportunity makes no sense to me.

[Bill from NYC]

3 hours ago, Rico said:

Forget about the coaches, Doug Whaley should be screaming bloody murder that Mike Mayock is a GM.

Why?

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, Trogdor said:

In the last 10 years there is a mile long list of White coaches fired after 1 season? Which is besides the point because he is asking for more representation.

 

Chud was fired after one season by Clowns in 2013

Jim Mora Jr. Was fired after one season by Seahawks in 2010

Cam Cameron was fired by Fish after one season in 2007

[peterpan]

7 hours ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

I think you need to watch again.  He’s not

implying that it was race related.  Just that he wishes there would be more minority  represention at HC.  I get what he’s saying 

Well I wish there would be more white player representation across the league.  But there's not.  Even though white people are like 70% of the population.  

 

Trust me, if white people made better football players, there would be more of them. 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, DuckyBoys said:

I like Burleson but not sure what he is getting at . Is he saying those guys needed more time because they were black or that a white coach would have been kept on under the same circumstances?  Maybe one can argue about the Cards coach but I would not call any of them shocking firings  .   Hopefully teams look at legitimate candidates instead of just interviewing the first black candidate they can get to come in.

 

I don't think he said it, but there was a certain tone of skepticism in his voice when he mentioned Joseph and Wilks and their tenure that could be interpreted as thinking they should have gotten more time.  Well, in the ordinary way of things, I'd consider that too with Joseph, but he did turn a 2x top-4 D into a bottom-third D which is not a good look for a supposed defensive guru.  And unlike B'lo, there's not a lot of patience for losing in Denver - last losing HC previous to Joseph got shipped out of town after 2 yrs (McDaniels)

 

Wilks having one year is unusual (yes, not unique) and is clearly not enough time with a rookie QB, insufficient investment in OL and a known plan to transition the scheme on D.

Either he's not being treated fairly, or has several here have said - it could be he's over his head and floundering and everyone in the building knows it.  In which case there is no choice but to move on.  I think it's a mistake to keep the GM, but as someone else said, Bidwell is not known as an owner with great good judgement.

I think his point was more feeling distressed that so many of the black HC were being axed, and wishing there were more reasonable candidates to challenge to replace them.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

44 minutes ago, peterpan said:

Well I wish there would be more white player representation across the league.  But there's not.  Even though white people are like 70% of the population.  

Trust me, if white people made better football players, there would be more of them.

 

Here's the thing though, Pixie.  Football players are evaluated by more or less objective metrics - the combine, film evaluated by scouts and coaches etc.

Even so, years ago Don Beebe implied he had faced skepticism about his physical abilities because of his race - he used to wear a shirt "White Flash".  But basically you could watch him run and see how fast he was, no arguments.

 

Football coaches, on the other hand, are hired by some combination of owners and GMs by criteria that are not too clear, but appear to involve to some extent who you know, and whether you've had experience as an OC or DC.  And whether you've had experience as an OC or DC typically depends upon who you know, cause all these guys hire their buddies.  If there were some kind of objective criterion for evaluating potential coaching candidates  - a coaching candidate combine - the analogy might make more sense.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Just win baby

 

 

[MakeBuffaloGreatAgain]

If you are looking at percentages and representations, 13% of NFL coaches should be black... which is about 4. It would seem they were over represented with 7 for a few years. 

 

Speaking of fair representation, over 70% of professional athletes in the USA should be white... but they aren’t. Maybe it is best to have the most qualified/successful people have the job and not try and fill a quota. 

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, peterpan said:

Well I wish there would be more white player representation across the league.  But there's not.  Even though white people are like 70% of the population.  

 

Trust me, if white people made better football players, there would be more of them. 

 

 

 

Plenty of white people make fine football players. They’re just doing things other than playing football, for whatever reason. You’re statement is akin to saying “if black people made better hockey players, there would be more of them” or take out the word hockey and replace it with “baseball”. Some sportswriters have actually decried the lack of black players in MLB and insist something must be done ! But why ? Who cares if more whites aren’t playing football, or more non-whites aren’t all that interested in baseball ? Quit the social engineering crap and just hire the one you think is best for the job without worrying about their appearance. Well, except for maybe Matt Patricia. That guy needs some work in the appearance department. 

[row_33]

[cringe over the whole discussion]

 

 

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think he said it, but there was a certain tone of skepticism in his voice when he mentioned Joseph and Wilks and their tenure that could be interpreted as thinking they should have gotten more time.  Well, in the ordinary way of things, I'd consider that too with Joseph, but he did turn a 2x top-4 D into a bottom-third D which is not a good look for a supposed defensive guru.  And unlike B'lo, there's not a lot of patience for losing in Denver - last losing HC previous to Joseph got shipped out of town after 2 yrs (McDaniels)

 

Wilks having one year is unusual (yes, not unique) and is clearly not enough time with a rookie QB, insufficient investment in OL and a known plan to transition the scheme on D.

Either he's not being treated fairly, or has several here have said - it could be he's over his head and floundering and everyone in the building knows it.  In which case there is no choice but to move on.  I think it's a mistake to keep the GM, but as someone else said, Bidwell is not known as an owner with great good judgement.

I think his point was more feeling distressed that so many of the black HC were being axed, and wishing there were more reasonable candidates to challenge to replace them.

 

 

 

 

First I do not disagree with what Nate had to say overall, but I think the timing was not good for the correct discussion needed.  The fact that 5 African American Head Coaches were just fired meant that in the last several years - African Americans have been hired at that top level in unprecedented levels compared to the past.  The discussion should be about how to continue that type of opportunity for deserving canidates so that the levels continue to grow. 

 

The issue is is that change is very slow - especially at upper management levels because no matter what we want to believe that type of promotion is about who you know and have worked with.  That is true in most businesses because at that level (say GM to HC) you must have the ability to have frank and open discussions about many topics and therefore you are looking for someone familiar and of a similar mindset.

 

You are seeing over the years - more GMs and assistant GMs of color and more Head Coaches and coordinators also.  The NFL is also sponsoring more and more opportunities for former players (both black and white) and non players (men and women) to get internship coaching roles that will start building these contacts and help drive some future coaches.

 

The biggest issue that I see - is that in the past the players made good money, but they knew when their career was done they were going to need jobs - so coaching became a logical next step.  Many past great coaches were former players that knew coaching was a great way to continue in the game they love, but their talent and body no longer allowed them to play.  That is no longer the case - many players can walk away and have enough money to never have to worry again - so the pool is lessened.  The former players that get into coaching now are mostly career journeyman types.  Therefore you are seeing more and more coaches with little to no playing experience reaching higher levels which begins to make the breakdown of player race less relevant because that is not the sole pool for future coaches any longer.

 

In in the case of Wilkes - First year coaches that are let go are always a bad look, but it has happened numerous times over the years to coaches of both races - so Wilkes is not unique in any way.  I believe Arizona hired Wilkes with a specific plan in place.  The plan was to bring in a Veteran QB (ended up as Bradford) and that with the talent and a better defensive scheme they were supposed to compete in Fitzgerald’s last years.  I do not think that the FO though before the draft they had a real opportunity at one of the top 4 QBs and I think they were truly just looking to keep the team competitive and find ways to win with the talent they have where in their division they have been one of the top 2 teams for the last several years.

 

Rosen falling to them changed everything - now you have a young QB that got playing time and you want to develop- that changes the FO thinking and my guess is they want (like so many other teams) the young offensive mind to develop Rosen.  Wilkes was not hired to groom Rosen - Rosen came after the hire and I believe that is the sole reason Wilkes is gone - if the FO had believed they could have gotten a guy earlier - the entire plan for the offseason may have been different and an offensive coach hired and the team blown up to grow around the rookie.

 

Now I agree that is not fair to Wilkes, but I think it has to do with background (DC) not skin color.  I also believe that yes he did not have the talent to work with and maybe the GM should go also, but if you think the Rosen pick is right and the GM made the pick - maybe you let him see that through.

 

What we do not have any information on is exactly what the discussions and plan were between GM and Owner prior to the hiring of Wilkes, after they picked up Bradford, after they drafted Rosen, and after Rosen became the starter.  That all impacts the discussion and is the real reason why Wilkes is no longer the Head Coach and I do not think race had anything to do with it.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Rochesterfan

[BmarvB]

16 hours ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

I think you need to watch again.  He’s not

implying that it was race related.  Just that he wishes there would be more minority  represention at HC.  I get what he’s saying 

I get it too. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

The issue is is that change is very slow - especially at upper management levels because no matter what we want to believe that type of promotion is about who you know and have worked with.  That is true in most businesses because at that level (say GM to HC) you must have the ability to have frank and open discussions about many topics and therefore you are looking for someone familiar and of a similar mindset.

 

You are seeing over the years - more GMs and assistant GMs of color and more Head Coaches and coordinators also.  The NFL is also sponsoring more and more opportunities for former players (both black and white) and non players (men and women) to get internship coaching roles that will start building these contacts and help drive some future coaches.

 

You are correct. Performance-wise, that's not a good thing.  Studies show that diverse teams (defined broadly - people from different educational backgrounds or training, different personality types, different cultures not just gender or race) initial have more conflict, but end up outperforming more homogeneous teams.  The key is to team build effectively - take people of different mindsets and get them to the point where they can communicate well and freely under stress.

@Trogdor said it in a different thread: "Why is a defensive coach hiring offensive personnel before he even hires a coordinator? This is the crony type stuff he does that I question. Every move seems to be for a mediocre friend and without a thorough search." 

McDermott is far from alone.  Almost every HC hires his cronies.  In a nutshell, that and as you state above are why laissez-faire and the status quo won't result in change.  Unlike player personnel, where there is extensive scrutiny and metrics and guys who don't do the job won't stay on the field, coaching assistant hiring are about cronyism and "looking for someone of of a similar mindset".

 

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

The biggest issue that I see - is that in the past the players made good money, but they knew when their career was done they were going to need jobs - so coaching became a logical next step.  Many past great coaches were former players that knew coaching was a great way to continue in the game they love, but their talent and body no longer allowed them to play.  That is no longer the case - many players can walk away and have enough money to never have to worry again - so the pool is lessened.  The former players that get into coaching now are mostly career journeyman types.  Therefore you are seeing more and more coaches with little to no playing experience reaching higher levels which begins to make the breakdown of player race less relevant because that is not the sole pool for future coaches any longer.

 

I don't think players were ever the primary pool for assistant coaches and coaches.  I think for a long time there was a feeling that former players were "too close" to their former peers to make good coaches.  But that's a place to look at too - where are people starting as coaches and what encourages or discourages this? 

I think a lot of teams expect coaching assistants to work for little or no pay to get a foot in the door.  McDermott spent a year as a "graduate assistant" (translation: unpaid grunt).  It takes financial backing from someone - spouse, family - for a guy to do that for a year or two.   Maybe fewer minority guys have that backing esp. if they are "fringe" players.

 

Programs like the NFL internship/coaching assistant programs which fund bringing in new people for a period of time and exposing them to the nuts-and-bolts of low level coaching while allowing the established coaches to see what they can bring, are probably a good start.  They are  analogous to what a lot of companies do hiring temp workers during a period of extra work.  We were exposed to a bunch of people we might not have taken a chance on through the usual permanent hiring process.  Some of them worked out really well and got permanent jobs.  I think these kind of programs are effective and could be made more effective.  If a lot of assistant coaches get their start as unpaid "graduate assistants", perhaps people with energy on the issue and money could set up a  "fellowship program" for "graduate assistants" not just NFL assistants.

 

The real problem is how to get more diversity (meaning people who aren't the HC or DC's cronies) into the assistant coach ranks, and how to see that they all have mentoring to openly and honestly help them build the skills they need to move to the next level, whatever those may be.  It may not be football skills that are holding some assistants back, but how they present and "sell" their ideas or themselves, public speaking, etc.  Do head coaches or coordinators uniformly provide this sort of feedback?  I'm guessing some do, some don't, and some that do, provide it unevenly (to the guys they see as 'promising', who may be the guys who remind them most of themselves).  Anthony Lynn was publicized as recently achieving his college degree.  For all we know, that was a barrier holding him back for years, if owners/GMs preferred a guy with a college degree as a coordinator or HC.  But maybe early on, no one laid it out for Lynn "if you want to take a step, finish your damn degree ALynn." 
 

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

In in the case of Wilkes - First year coaches that are let go are always a bad look, but it has happened numerous times over the years to coaches of both races - so Wilkes is not unique in any way.  I believe Arizona hired Wilkes with a specific plan in place.  The plan was to bring in a Veteran QB (ended up as Bradford) and that with the talent and a better defensive scheme they were supposed to compete in Fitzgerald’s last years.  I do not think that the FO though before the draft they had a real opportunity at one of the top 4 QBs and I think they were truly just looking to keep the team competitive and find ways to win with the talent they have where in their division they have been one of the top 2 teams for the last several years.

 

I disagree here.  I think the Cardinals made it clear they expected and intended to draft a QB.  I also think that if they expected Bradford to last or be effective behind that OL, that was very foolish.

 

I do think they expected the team to be competitive and win with the talent they had, but once Palmer was out of the picture that was likely an unreasonable ownership expectation without better hosses in the trenches on both sides, and especially with Wilkes transitioning the defensive scheme.

[stinky finger]

14 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

Also worth noting: Wilks was in the midst of converting the defense to 4-3. Bidwill and Keim knew he would do this when they hired him; they also had damn well better known that that takes longer than one season to do. They canned him after one anyways. And people here are saying it’s the fired coaches who are “incompetent”? Sorry but that front office in Arizona smells pretty incompetent to me.

 

Incompetent or racist?

 

Two entirely different things here.

[JoPar_v2]

Just now, inaugural balls said:

 

Incompetent or racist?

 

Two entirely different things here.

 

Incompetent for sure. Racist who knows? I doubt it. But people here are claiming these coaches were fired purely for incompetence, I am just saying, with respect to Arizona, there seems to be a lot of incompetence spread around and it doesn’t look too good to just can the coach.

[Gugny]

He lost me at "vacancy's."

 

Stupid to bring up he fact that GMs remain employed, even though they're the ones who hired the coaches who are getting fired.  It's like that in every job, Nate.

 

Like many here, I like Nate Burleson.  Either someone got into his ear/got him all riled up, or he's simply not as smart as I thought he was.  I'm calling this one a mulligan, personally.

[dubs]

Was really hoping society got this out of its system in 2018. 

[Nervous Guy]

Just now, JoPar_v2 said:

 

Incompetent for sure. Racist who knows? I doubt it. But people here are claiming these coaches were fired purely for incompetence, I am just saying, with respect to Arizona, there seems to be a lot of incompetence spread around and it doesn’t look too good to just can the coach.

Could be they were fired because the front office identified they made a mistake in the first place by hiring them...are they then incompetent?  Should you stick with someone you don't think can do the job they were hired for because it "doesn't look right"?  Mistakes happen, rush to hire, or slim pickin's can lead to the wrong hires.  What are the reactions from the players of these teams?  Are they upset or agree with management's decisions?  I can't believe there have been no player reactions.

[Big Turk]

17 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

Wilkes got the axe quick, but I think that was a course correction - he never should have been hired in the first place; he’s clearly not ready/capable of being a head coach. 

 

From what has been said the team was an unmitigated disaster in every way imaginable under him, not just on the field.

 

After 1 year you have to almost show you are incompetent as a leader to get fired

[Bill from NYC]

17 hours ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

I like Nate Burleson a lot and think he’s smart and well-spoken. 

 

I don't think that the firings had anything to do with racism.  I also don't think that your post implies that you are a racist. In fact, I doubt that you are.

 

Having said that, I think that if I was black and somebody said I was "well spoken," I would be pissed off. It can be taken to imply (again, I'm NOT saying that you were) that I am an exception, even if it was meant as a compliment.

 

Honestly, I cannot remember the last white person that someone called "well spoken."