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

[bbb]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

All you had to do was look at the thread immediately above yours and you would see that YOLO beat you by 5 hours and 7 pages.  Just sayin....

 

You obviously don't get what I was saying.  

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, bbb said:

 

You obviously don't get what I was saying.  

 

 

Obviously

[maryland-bills-fan]

6 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-to-present-new-resTo olutions-to-rooney-rule

To be fair, since 16% or so of the US population is black, we should insist that 85% of the players be "white".  Racism is racism. Let's call it what it is.

6 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. 

....and how is this different from the rest of life?

[BillsNutHawaii]

Fine, if the NFL is going to “socially engineer” front office and coaching positions, then it needs to do the same thing on the playing field (and every other aspect of the game; trainers, equipment personnel, secretaries, ball “people”) 

 

The playing field should then have an equal number of players who are ethnically Asians, Polynesians, Caucasians, Latinos, Indians, Africans, Eskimos (I apologize if I left out an ethnic group). 

 

And there goes your so called “quality of the game”

[BillsNutHawaii]

2 hours ago, Mango said:

 

 

Right. OK, improving draft stock seems a bit like over correcting too far. But in an African American dominated sport the lack of racial diversity is appalling. This may be the wrong solution, but instead of people whining about it, what is the proper route. Because “just hire the most qualified regardless of race” is not working, and historically has never worked in America. 

 

The only solution I could think of which may begin to balance things out would be to develop an algorithm to include only the quality of work by an individual (no ethnic background data, only football related performance).  Then based on the output of the algorithm, only the top individuals would qualify for interviews, promotion.  

 

If you’re an individual who believes math is racist, then my proposal doesn’t work for you:

 

[Mango]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I have to ask why is the lack appalling? Which coaching prospect do you feel has not gotten a fair shake? We used to have more so why has it gotten worse?

Nearly 60% of college players are black. Nearly 70% of the NFL are black. When thousands work through the highest levels of the sport (NCAA, NFL) you should see more representation on the coaching and FO side just by the sheer proportions. There was a time when black kids weren’t QB’s because “they weren’t the most qualified”. 
 

Women see the same problem. Most HC for women’s sports are men. It’s not that there aren’t enough qualified women. 
 

That is borderline insulting. 

[JoPoy88]

Before trying this, maybe the league should do something about the rampant nepotism alive and well in coaching. 

[GunnerBill]

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.

Edited May 16, 2020 by GunnerBill

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I have to ask why is the lack appalling? Which coaching prospect do you feel has not gotten a fair shake? We used to have more so why has it gotten worse?

 

Because teams have started approaching the Rooney Rule like a tick box and have stopped interviewing the most qualified minority candidates. 

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Top of my head?

 

Kitchens, Judge, Kingsbury, Rhule

 

Yep. Of those the only one I can find an argument for being deserving on "merit" is Rhule. He did a good job at Temple and Baylor turning around failing programmes. Okay, big step to the NFL, but he has a resume at least. Kingsbury had never coached in the NFL at any level and had a losing record in 5 years as a college Head Coach despite having Baker Mayfield and Patrick Mahomes as his Quarterbacks for a long stretch of that. Isn't to say Kingsbury is useless. But if that is "merit" when I compare him to Richard who was the position coach of the Legion of Boom, a 3 year DC in Seattle whose worst defensive performance was 13th in the NFL (other two years they were top 5), and then a two year defensive pass game coordinator in Dallas where they were 11th and 13th against the pass despite having 1 decent corner and no decent safeties then I must misunderstand what merit means. 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, whatdrought said:

Who Biscuit? Whose this dynamite minority coach getting passed over time and again? The KC coordinator who comes from the same spot as Doug Peterson (SB winner) and Matt Nagy (seemingly a flop)? Flip a coin about which one he’ll be. 
 

Everyone sucked in Cleveland and his re-hiring was because he had once again shown himself to be a top 5-10 offensive coordinator after the Cleveland gig. I’m not saying he was the right hire, but you can’t say that at the time he was the wrong one. That’s hindsight and revisionist. 

 

Actually I did say at the time whoever hired Pat Schurmer as a Head Coach would be looking for a new one within 2 years. He is just horrifically ill suited for the role. Likewise I always said whoever hired Vance Joseph as a Head Coach would be making a mistake. Both should have been 1 and done IMO. 

 

You can have bad black head coaches. You can have bad white head coaches. But C.Biscuit is correct if you were a bad black Head Coach no amount of years rebuilding your reputation in a coordinator spot will get you a 2nd crack in the way it did for Pat Schurmer or Mike Mularkey. 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Why does Matt Patricia get 3 years while Steve Wilkes gets one and will never get again?  

 

So while you know I generally agree with you on this topic C.Biscuit, Steve Wilks was one of the most obvious 1 and done Head Coaches I can recall. If you are that obviously out of your depth you get fired after one year regardless of race - see Kitchens, Freddie and Tomsula, Jimmy. 

 

[Poleshifter]

9 hours ago, FireChans said:

 

Same energy.

Hey, I wonder what the NFL would give you if you hired a female HC or GM? There's a minority for ya'

 

Maybe they would gift you a couple extra 1st rounders.

 

[Koko78]

9 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-to-present-new-resolutions-to-rooney-rule

 

I'd be fine with this, so long as teams get additional bonuses for hiring women in those positions.

 

I think Mrs. Pegula would make a fine GM and HC, while Beane and McDermott get well-deserved promotions to some other job title (with the same duties they currently enjoy.)

 

I think our beloved Bills could do a lot with 2-3 first round picks every year based on her skin color and gender.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Koko78

[hjnick]

Why do you get the bonus draft movement only when you hire him???  EVERY YEAR that the minority HC stays there you should move up 10 picks...

 

Can we have multiple HC's?  Why not?  Wouldn't we do better with 2 or 3 HC's to divvy up the workload?

 

Like others have said, what about women or LBGTQ+ people?  Those should be extra 1st round picks right?

 

_______________________

 

Ok, this has been a great conversation.  I think most people are in the same boat.  This resolution is dumb and should not be used.

 

I personally like the Rooney rule.  If anything, it will give minority candidates practice for when they do get the job.

 

So, one of the questions is 'why so many coaching retreads?'  I think there are a number of reasons:

1) Going with people you know. - If you know someone that you have known for a while and you think they would be a good head coach, that's an easy choice.  You know the person and their philosophy, their demeanor and if you can 'get along' with them.

2) Known commodity. - Look at Tom Coughlin. Personally, never liked him as a coach, BUT he won a super bowl.  That dude got to the top of the mountain.  He will get the benefit of the doubt multiple times.  You don't think Jerry Jones took McCarthy's Superbowl win into account?  His offensive philosophy?  Now, ask long as you don't totally blow your first Head Coaching gig, you will probably get a second chance.

3) Schanahan, Schottenheimer, Shula (please forgive spelling)...  head coaching royalty.  Would a GM or owner want to take a change on a non-HC (black or white) vs. a person that has lived in coaching their whole life?  

 

Also, elevating a first time non-HC (black or white) is a HUGE HUGE gamble.  They have never been an NFL head coach before.  It's close to a crap shoot.

 

As for GM's, these are front office people... NOT necessarily prior players, so I have zero information on the reason for less minority GM's.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 hours ago, Poleshifter said:

Hey, I wonder what the NFL would give you if you hired a female HC or GM? There's a minority for ya'

 

Maybe they would gift you a couple extra 1st rounders.

 

 

Women are a majority, not a minority.

[GunnerBill]

My proposed solution by the way (and I put this out there in Jan) is that the NFL should take a role and get some of its retired wise old men to publish at the end of each season a league approved 10 man shortlist of the hottest NFL coaching assistants. At least 5 on that list must be minorities. Then I would require teams to interview at least one minority candidate and one non-minority candidate off the list as part of their process. Alongside that they can interview as many other non shortlisted coaches as they like. The aim being to make sure that the minority coaches being interviewed are the guys who actually have a chance of getting a job and are qualified to get a job. Rather than the "Oh we interviewed our black linebacker coach on the first day of our search. We are going to fire him once our new coach is in place but he helped us tick a box." 

 

It is a bit blunt instrument I accept that but we have to get back to a situation where the minority candidates getting interviews are the credible people who might have a chance of getting the job. Once that happens I am convinced the number will turn around again naturally. Because I don't believe NFL teams are institutionally racist. If they think the best man they interviewed was black they will hire him. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

4 hours ago, Poleshifter said:

Hey, I wonder what the NFL would give you if you hired a female HC or GM? There's a minority for ya'

 

Maybe they would gift you a couple extra 1st rounders.

 

"Hey, is it me, or does that new HC of the Patriots just look like Belichick in a wig?..."  ?

[whatdrought]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Actually I did say at the time whoever hired Pat Schurmer as a Head Coach would be looking for a new one within 2 years. He is just horrifically ill suited for the role. Likewise I always said whoever hired Vance Joseph as a Head Coach would be making a mistake. Both should have been 1 and done IMO. 

 

You can have bad black head coaches. You can have bad white head coaches. But C.Biscuit is correct if you were a bad black Head Coach no amount of years rebuilding your reputation in a coordinator spot will get you a 2nd crack in the way it did for Pat Schurmer or Mike Mularkey. 

Right, and we as fans often see guys as overrated candidates. It doesn’t change the fact that regardless of race, those guys were hired because they were seen as the best candidates at the time (white or black) They’re not examples of racist intent as biscuit tries to make them. 
 

Which black coordinators fall under that setup or having a HC position and not being able to get back to that after excelling as a coordinator? I supposed Frazier is an example, but it seems like defensive re-treads are less prevalent. Todd Bowles is on his way to that, but same situation there. I know Lovie Smith got another shot and so did Dungy, but neither of those  are comparable to a Shumur situation. Jim Caldwell got two chances as a HC as a minority after rebuilding his reputation. Am I missing anyone else? 

[SirAndrew]

People always get worked up over these things. Normally, I don’t care much about these type of things. However, this isn’t your typical movement to improve diversity. This directly impacts the on field success a team has based on whom they hire. I’m not one who gets upset about efforts to improve diversity, but this is clearly the wrong way to do it. It’s absolutely absurd, but that’s what the league does best. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by SirAndrew