Minority HC or GM could improve team’s draft position with new proposed resolution

[TigerJ]

19 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Bill belichick just rented the movie “Soul Man”

If this passes, is Belichick going to show up at a league meeting wearing blackface and claiming he has an ancestor who was a slave?

[J-GunJoshAllen17]

Bringing social justice to the draft, what could go wrong.

[HomeskillitMoorman]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It’s a board game. Who plays games that are made inherently unfair? 

 

Also, who would be so deluded to think that giving women players of a board game an advantage for a reason wholly unrelated to the fictional game to correct an injustice is a good idea? Should men get an extra turn at the Game of Life because they die at a far more alarming rate in the work related accidents compared to women? 

 

If I was a woman, which I’m not, I would be outright offended that a game with a strictly level playing field, unlike real life, decided to change the rules to give me an unfair advantage. “Sorry you get paid less, but we’ll cheat so you win 12 hour games of  Monopoly more!” 

 

Nice message being sent. The makers of this game should be embarrassed. 

 

Sure, I'm not saying it's the right idea for a game, it's more of the scoffing at the idea that there is or ever has been any kind of gender pay inequity.

 

Lets take a deeper look into the work related accident data. You do realize that so many of those positions were for jobs that women historically were either flat out not allowed to have or weren't able to get because of discrimination, right? The system has silo'd genders into certain positions for an incredibly long time, and we've only made a certain amount of headway to fix that. And that goes both ways, there's still a certain bias against men in traditional women-dominated fields.

 

But I don't know how anyone can possiby argue that men have reaped far more benefits from this than women have. Even after we've evened out the playing field in education...the executive/leadership/highest payig jobs across the board amongst all lines of work are still completely dominated by white males.

 

Unless you're going to say that you just think white males are smarter and more capable than everyone else...how would you not see that as problematic and believe that no steps need to be taken to drive equity?

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, teef said:

Could you explain what certain philosophy you’re referring to that you think exists in this board?  It seems to me like you’re just stereotyping everyone on no real basis.  

Maybe, in my experience a substantial minority, pushing fifty percent of folk in the white world I grew up in in western New York tend to lean towards being, shall we say, racially biased. And that has held true in the many places in America I have lived. Next time you see a confederate flag on someone’s automobile or house ask yourself the question...nuthin but luv, just a honest observation. 
 

Go Bills!!!

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

Sure, I'm not saying it's the right idea for a game, it's more of the scoffing at the idea that there is or ever has been any kind of gender pay inequity.

 

Lets take a deeper look into the work related accident data. You do realize that so many of those positions were for jobs that women historically were either flat out not allowed to have or weren't able to get because of discrimination, right? The system has silo'd genders into certain positions for an incredibly long time, and we've only made a certain amount of headway to fix that. And that goes both ways, there's still a certain bias against men in traditional women-dominated fields.

 

But I don't know how anyone can possiby argue that men have reaped far more benefits from this than women have. Even after we've evened out the playing field in education...the executive/leadership/highest payig jobs across the board amongst all lines of work are still completely dominated by white males.

 

Unless you're going to say that you just think white males are smarter and more capable than everyone else...how would you not see that as problematic and believe that no steps need to be taken to drive equity?

The game is stupid dude. It’s a game. Everyone makes the same amount when they pass go in the original. Giving women players more money when they pass go is really stupid. 

 

The game sucks. Don’t make the NFL into Ms. Monopoly. That would suck too.

[teef]

36 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Maybe, in my experience a substantial minority, pushing fifty percent of folk in the white world I grew up in in western New York tend to lean towards being, shall we say, racially biased. And that has held true in the many places in America I have lived. Next time you see a confederate flag on someone’s automobile or house ask yourself the question...nuthin but luv, just a honest observation. 
 

Go Bills!!!

I’m not sure who you guys are associating with, but maybe it’s time for a change.  Does this level of racism exist?   Of course, but if  I thought 50% of the people I associate with lean towards being racist, I’d find another way to live. 
 

even if that was your feeling, do you think it’s ok to imply that everyone else is a racist?  I mean...shouldn’t posters be able to say that they don’t like cam newton and not be called a racist?   That’s reasonable...right?
 

ive lived in wny the majority of my life, and although we all experienced racism, it never been to the level that some of you are making it out to be.  I even come from an old school Italian family, and I can honesty say that race was never brought up.  

Edited May 16, 2020 by teef

[Woodman19]

The NFL needs to know who their target audience is and I suspect SJW are not the ones coughing up Billions to watch their product.

[HappyDays]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

This has been discussed previously but I think part of the reason things have slid back recently is that teams have more and more looked for offensive minded Head Coaches and there just aren't enough minority coaches getting gigs on the offensive side of the ball. When they do, typically, it is as running back coaches. Not a position that many guys get promoted to OC and HC roles from. Indeed the one black Head Coach who was an offensive guy that springs to mind - Anthony Lynn - was a running backs coach and the most high profile current black OC - Eric Bieniemy - was also a running backs coach.

 

I don't know precisely the numbers but my instinct is that when the Rooney Rule initially took hold a lot of the minority Head Coach hires were defensive guys. Tomlin, Smith, Frazier, Lewis etc. 

 

The NFL still has some way to go in my opinion and I credit them for not sitting on their hands. That said, I am not sure they have identified the exact right policy problem, and as a result this proposal is not the right solution. The problem for me with the Rooney Rule is that teams are interviewing minority candidates.... but not minority candidates that have realistic shots of getting the gig. The "go to" approach now for a lot of teams is interview whatever minority coach you have on staff in the first couple of days, tick that box and then move on. The real, genuine, outstanding minority candidates are not getting enough interviews. Bieniemy interviewed for the Giants job and the Browns job I believe and Robert Saleh interviewed for the Browns. But I think they were the only interview each had.  Not sure Kris Richard had any interviews this year and is currently without a job in the league which is bonkers. To me they are the three most obviously qualified candidates who are not retreads. The other who may well get looks next time around if the Buccs offense flies is Byron Leftwich. 

 

So I think you have to try and tackle getting those guys in front of more decision makers. If they get into the rooms those guys will get hired, because they are credible. Just as Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith and Mike Tomlin were always going to get hired when they got in front of decision makers.... because they were credible. Lovie and Marv in particular were having trouble getting jobs before the Rooney Rule because they were not getting in the room and I fear we are back there, where the best minority candidates are not getting into the room. So rather than bonuses in draft position to hire a guy who might not be right for the job the NFL needs to tackle why the guys who might be right for the job are not getting enough looks. People should be hired on merit. The Rooney Rule worked early on precisely because it didn't interfere with that principle it supported it. It was about getting the best people into the interviews. But the way teams are applying it now it has stopped having that effect. That is what the NFL should tackle.

 

This is the most cogent response in the thread and it's telling that no one has bothered to respond to it. Richard and Saleh are good examples of guys that would probably have a head coaching job if they had connections. I don't have an argument against that.

 

I guess everyone is in agreement that this specific proposal goes too far so it doesn't really need to be said, but offering a specific competitive advantage is the wrong solution. There is already a competitive advantage in hiring the right candidates. NFL owners and executives are going to make the same awful decisions regardless.

 

A simple tweak to the Rooney rule would be to mandate interviewing at least one minority candidate that hasn't been a member of your own team's staff within the last 3 seasons, or something like that. That would effectively force teams to actually identify the best minority candidate, like a Kris Richard, and get them in the room with NFL executives to make their case. That would eliminate the "checklist" thinking you mention. And I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that proposal.

[Bangarang]

Imagine a scenario where Belichick takes a demotion on paper and hires a minority HC and GM only for getting higher draft picks while running things?

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is the most cogent response in the thread and it's telling that no one has bothered to respond to it. Richard and Saleh are good examples of guys that would probably have a head coaching job if they had connections. I don't have an argument against that.

 

I guess everyone is in agreement that this specific proposal goes too far so it doesn't really need to be said, but offering a specific competitive advantage is the wrong solution. There is already a competitive advantage in hiring the right candidates. NFL owners and executives are going to make the same awful decisions regardless.

 

A simple tweak to the Rooney rule would be to mandate interviewing at least one minority candidate that hasn't been a member of your own team's staff within the last 3 seasons, or something like that. That would effectively force teams to actually identify the best minority candidate, like a Kris Richard, and get them in the room with NFL executives to make their case. That would eliminate the "checklist" thinking you mention. And I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that proposal.

 

Yep I'd certainly be in favour of giving that a try @HappyDays and see if it works. 

[BigBillsFan]

21 hours ago, whatdrought said:

Congratulations Mr. Black candidate, you’ve got the job and it definitely has nothing to do with us getting a bonus because of your melanin. 

 

RACIST

 

21 hours ago, Happy said:

each candidate should be considered on his abilities, and nothing else.

 

RACIST

 

20 hours ago, KD in CA said:

I'm so old I remember when we aspired to be a 'color-blind' society.

 

RACIST

 

21 hours ago, mjt328 said:

What a blatantly racist idea.

 

RACIST

 

 

/SARCASM

[whatdrought]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Jim Caldwell had been to a Superbowl, so had Lovie. Denny Green and Tony Dungy had been to NFCCGs. My point isn't that black head coaches never get a second shot. It is that as a white Head Coach you can be an utter and dismal failure and still get a second shot. It is as @C.Biscuit97 says.... it isn't about race per se as it is as about the old boys network. Shurmer is well connected. He got a 2nd shot despite being a disaster first time and was, entirely predictably, a disaster 2nd time. 

 

So which minorities deserved a second shot and didn't get it? 

 

Also, are you saying it's not about race, but about whose known versus not?

 

 

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You dont have to be a sociologist to see it. Just pay attention to any thread that deals with racial topics/Kaep/etc. Or dip your toe into PPP for a few minutes.

 

I'm not making any commentary on anyone's philosophy, but C.Biscuit isnt wrong for saying it exists here at an almost surprising level.

 

 

"I'm not making a comment about people's philosophy, but I'm agreeing that there's a certain philosophy here."

[DrDawkinstein]

2 hours ago, teef said:

It exists everywhere, but what I think you and super woke are doing is letting a vocal few paint a picture of a general group.  I’m just not into someone implying a poster is a racist, then running away with their tails between their legs with no explanation, (not you dr). 

 

It is not the vocal minority on the board. It is what it is. It's been that way here long before yall came over from BBMB. Not calling everyone, or even anyone, racist. But there is a large group here which are less... empathetic than others. And pointing it out is no different than calling states red or blue. Of course not everyone in that state feels that way, but it gives a generally accurate picture.

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

"I'm not making a comment about people's philosophy, but I'm agreeing that there's a certain philosophy here."

 

Right. Not calling them right or wrong or getting into the specifics.

 

Mind you, I didnt go back and read the whole thread when I jumped in to reply to teef on page 10, so maybe my context is off.

 

Dont get too "triggered" by my comment, or whatever you guys call it.

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Right. Not calling them right or wrong or getting into the specifics.

 

Mind you, I didnt go back and read the whole thread when I jumped in to reply to teef on page 10, so maybe my context is off.

 

Dont get too "triggered" by my comment, or whatever you guys call it.

 

Well, just like you won't call those who you deem "less empathetic" right or wrong, I won't call anyone who sits with their perceived moral superiority and heightened view of self right or wrong. I'll let their posting do it for them. ?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

21 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I wonder how this is going to go on this board. ? it’s a very diverse group here.

 

and yes forcing people to get hired is a problem.  But the lack of diversity at the top levels in the nfl is a serious issue.  And I don’t think it’s racist but rather the buddy buddy system in NFL front offices.  Crappy coaches and executives get passed around because of who they are friends with.  While being a player is a meritocracy, nfl jobs are the opposite of that. 

Maybe there needs to be rules instituted around how many times you can get a coaching job or term limit type of thing to break that buddy system  cycle.
 

With more people flowing through perhaps diversity would be more likely?

 

Also, they are treating it as s demand problem (racism) but is it possible there is a supply issue? (Lack of diversity in the  grooming pipeline) 

[C.Biscuit97]

4 hours ago, teef said:

Could you explain what certain philosophy you’re referring to that you think exists in this board?  It seems to me like you’re just stereotyping everyone on no real basis.  

That this board is at least 80% white (a very low estimate that I would bet money on being higher), male (90%), 40+ (70% but not as confident in that guess, and definitely leans more conservative.  Which is completely fine but obviously the opinions posted here are going to represent that mindset.  And I haven’t followed since yesterday but it was a good and rational discussion but these threads go all the I expect them to go.  
 

imo, it’s like posting this on FoxNews.  I don’t think this solution is the right way to do it but I’m not shocked at all that the majority of posters here don’t think lack of minority nfl leadership positions is a problem.  And again, that’s fine because people tend to think in their own best interests.  Again, JMO (but I’m definitely right ?).

[ColoradoBills]

What about mixed race candidates?

Do they only get to move up half the spots?

[teef]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

It is not the vocal minority on the board. It is what it is. It's been that way here long before yall came over from BBMB. Not calling everyone, or even anyone, racist. But there is a large group here which are less... empathetic than others. And pointing it out is no different than calling states red or blue. Of course not everyone in that state feels that way, but it gives a generally accurate picture.

 

i never go into the PPP area, so i'll trust you in that regard.  there's no problem pointing out that it exist.  it does.  when it becomes a problem is when certain people on this board make broad assumptions of someone because of their likes or dislikes about a certain player...especially a black player.  not everyone will dislike a black player because they are black.  

[Ethan in Cleveland]

21 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Maybe time to stop watching after that.  It's probably a good idea to give minorities everything we have and we can just go live in a cave or something.  

 

No offence intended toward anyone but the teams with the worse record get the better pick for a reason.

Not surprised that you're confused C. Biscuit and this topic is not a good idea.  

The racism is strong in this one...

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

So which minorities deserved a second shot and didn't get it? 

 

Also, are you saying it's not about race, but about whose known versus not?

 

 

My argument is less about black head coaches who deserved a 2nd shot but didn't get one.... it is more about white head coaches who don't getting them and taking opportunities away from others. 

 

The fundamental problem I have with NFL Head Coaching hire is the nepotism and who you know culture. That brings with it a sort of indirect discrimination because it further inbeds those cliques and a lot of black coaches are not in those same groupings. I don't think anyone here thinks that if the best interview an NFL team has is by a black coach they wouldn't hire him. What is an issue is making sure the people who would be capable of being that outstanding candidate get in the room. That is where the rule as currently constituted is failing.