Josh McCown for HC possibly in Houston

[Mr. WEO]

16 hours ago, Eastport bills said:

If McCown gets this job over Bienemy something is seriously wrong. Eric is the playcaller for a juggernaut team and McCown never coached in the NFL. Houston fans should March in protest if McNair thumbs his nose at a great fanbase.

 

well.....kinda, maybe 

[Saxum]

14 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

It's really too bad, though. I understand why Watson feels he wants to pressure them to get a good head coach. But the instant he did so he made the job toxic and the possibility of actually getting someone good pretty close to zero. It's now a self-fulfilling prophecy, making his departure much more likely.

 

That is his goal.  He wants to be traded (only teams he wants to go to) or even more be cut and keep the signing bonus he just got. 

 

[DaggersEOD]

4 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

You've used enough of the hip terms to understand the kind of person I'm dealing with, here.  

 

I'm going to try to explain this in a way I think you might grasp it.

 

First of all, whether or not I'm a minority is a) none of your business and b) totally irrelevant.

 

I am not accusing all NFL owners of being racist and I doubt anyone is - so save your promises for someone who wants to hear them.

 

This, to me, is not exclusively about HC vacancies/hirings.  It's more about the more entry-level, lower on the totem pole, positions.  Ex: when the Bills were the first team to hire the first female full-time coach.  They took a chance.  They opened the door. They showed other teams that it's okay to do those things.

 

Or the Cardinals, when they hired Byron Leftwich to be the QB Coach - and the Bucs who hired him as OC two years later.

 

That's progress.  That's moving forward.

 

Hiring a proven failure in Rob Ryan to be a position coach was stupid.  It was dumb.  It was also a perfect opportunity to give a minority or a female a chance.  They didn't take the chance.  Instead, they hired a man who has singlehandedly destroyed the last three defenses he's worked with.  Makes sense, right?

 

I'm just going to stop there and trust that you get it.  If not, I have zero interest in going back and forth with you.  So please do us both a favor and either don't respond or simply say that we can agree to disagree.

 

Peace!

Not sure what hip words you’re referring to. Just normal common sense and reasoning 🤣🤣

 

So you’re not a minority, you think that it’s a race problem not a nepotism problem but you’re cool enough with it to still support them. Gotcha. 🖍
 

Agree to disagree.

[DaggersEOD]

22 hours ago, Gugny said:

If another NFL team hires another unqualified white candidate to be their HC, it will not - and should not - go ever well, at all.

Just a reminder of where you started this convo. Not sure how you’re not implying racist intent. 
 

Just seems like you assume the worst in people. 

[WotAGuy]

7 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

Just a reminder of where you started this convo. Not sure how you’re not implying racist intent. 
 

Just seems like you assume the worst in people. 

Well, there is a Rooney Rule for a reason, no?

[DaggersEOD]

7 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Well, there is a Rooney Rule for a reason, no?

Yes, there is. Yet the same retreads keep getting hired and young talent is ignored.
 

IMO, the problem is nepotism, not racism. By not identifying the correct problem, we can’t enact effective solutions. 

[WotAGuy]

13 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

Yes, there is. Yet the same retreads keep getting hired and young talent is ignored.
 

IMO, the problem is nepotism, not racism. By not identifying the correct problem, we can’t enact effective solutions. 

But if it was simply nepotism, why is there a Rooney Rule requiring interviews of minorities?  Doesn’t that speak to the fact the league itself recognizes there is inherent racism, or at least favoritism?  
 

I remember when it was a controversial thing to play a black QB. When Buffalo started a rookie black QB in 1969 it was a very big deal.  

 

I have read OJ’s book about his rookie season in 1969, and he talks a lot about the inherent racism in the league. I think the remnants of that racism remain, or else there wouldn’t be a rule forcing teams to interview minorities. 

[Man with No Name]

50 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

But if it was simply nepotism, why is there a Rooney Rule requiring interviews of minorities?  Doesn’t that speak to the fact the league itself recognizes there is inherent racism, or at least favoritism?  
 

I remember when it was a controversial thing to play a black QB. When Buffalo started a rookie black QB in 1969 it was a very big deal.  

 

I have read OJ’s book about his rookie season in 1969, and he talks a lot about the inherent racism in the league. I think the remnants of that racism remain, or else there wouldn’t be a rule forcing teams to interview minorities. 

optics/virtue signaling are very high on the list of why things are currently done. logic is sometimes the last thing that dictates cause and effect. 

 

 

[WotAGuy]

1 minute ago, Man with No Name said:

optics/virtue signaling are very high on the list of why things are currently done. logic is sometimes the last thing that dictates cause and effect. 

 

 

Huh?

[Man with No Name]

12 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Huh?

you ask why is there a rooney rule, implying that the reason must be driven by logic. 

 

im not going to argue one way or the other. But not all decisions are based on logic and reasoning. 

[WotAGuy]

4 minutes ago, Man with No Name said:

you ask why is there a rooney rule, implying that the reason must be driven by logic. 

 

im not going to argue one way or the other. But not all decisions are based on logic and reasoning. 

Well, there is logic and reasoning involved even if the action taken is not sincere. So if the NFL is just employing  the Rooney Rule for the optics involved, there is a logic and reasoning behind it.  Perhaps for anti-trust reasons or whatever. A group of billionaires may look like a bunch of idiots at times, but they are savvy. 

[DaggersEOD]

1 hour ago, WotAGuy said:

But if it was simply nepotism, why is there a Rooney Rule requiring interviews of minorities?  Doesn’t that speak to the fact the league itself recognizes there is inherent racism, or at least favoritism?  
 

I remember when it was a controversial thing to play a black QB. When Buffalo started a rookie black QB in 1969 it was a very big deal.  

 

I have read OJ’s book about his rookie season in 1969, and he talks a lot about the inherent racism in the league. I think the remnants of that racism remain, or else there wouldn’t be a rule forcing teams to interview minorities. 

I don’t think anyone would argue that there wasn’t overt racism in the 60’s. I just don’t think it’s a driving factor anymore.

 

While all the current focus is on hidden racists, the actual decision makers take a public stand against racism in all its forms (like any decent person). They vow to make sure they interview minority candidates...etc. 

 

Then the HC calls and says the LB coach needs some help and the assist LB coach’s son is willing to intern. 
 

Decision maker gets irritated and tells the coach to just do whatever he feels is best for these low level staffing decisions. 
 

If the focus was on fighting nepotism, a much wider field of entry level positions would suddenly be available to new blood, including minority candidates who may not know a guy already on the inside. 
 

I think this would do more to fix the issue of retread coaches getting a million undeserved looks, than whatever is going on now. 

[Man with No Name]

how do you fight nepotism? 

how do you make a rule against it?

[WotAGuy]

5 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

I don’t think anyone would argue that there wasn’t overt racism in the 60’s. I just don’t think it’s a driving factor anymore.

 

While all the current focus is on hidden racists, the actual decision makers take a public stand against racism in all its forms (like any decent person). They vow to make sure they interview minority candidates...etc. 

 

Then the HC calls and says the LB coach needs some help and the assist LB coach’s son is willing to intern. 
 

Decision maker gets irritated and tells the coach to just do whatever he feels is best for these low level staffing decisions. 
 

If the focus was on fighting nepotism, a much wider field of entry level positions would suddenly be available to new blood, including minority candidates who may not know a guy already on the inside. 
 

I think this would do more to fix the issue of retread coaches getting a million undeserved looks, than whatever is going on now. 

Yeah, I see this happens. Belichick’s son comes immediately to mind. But I just don’t see it happening on a large enough scale to crowd out minorities. 
 

There is an old boys’ network in the league, and you seldom see black coaches be a part of it. That tells me it’s less about nepotism and more about racial bias. 
 

The league has several programs in place to promote development of minority coaches and administrative staff. To me, that shows the league understands it has an issue on it’s hands that needs to be addressed and they are taking action.  It may not seem sincere, but the proof is in the pudding. 

6 minutes ago, Man with No Name said:

how do you fight nepotism? 

how do you make a rule against it?

Start by making a rule that you can’t hire your kid if he has a mullet. 

[DaggersEOD]

3 minutes ago, Man with No Name said:

how do you fight nepotism? 

how do you make a rule against it?

That is a question I really think should be explored more! 
 

It’s truly systemic and has layers and layers to protect itself. That’s why I feel a lot more energy should be focused on this problem. Fighting ghosts just lets the system chug along unimpeded. 
 

I think just increasing awareness of the problem and more scrutiny on staffing decisions (ok Bob, is your son REALLY the best guy to do this??) would go a long way.

 

Look at most of the current successful HCs. Most were interns first. That’s the level that I think could make the most difference IMO. 

[WotAGuy]

4 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

That is a question I really think should be explored more! 
 

It’s truly systemic and has layers and layers to protect itself. That’s why I feel a lot more energy should be focused on this problem. Fighting ghosts just lets the system chug along unimpeded. 
 

I think just increasing awareness of the problem and more scrutiny on staffing decisions (ok Bob, is your son REALLY the best guy to do this??) would go a long way.

 

Look at most of the current successful HCs. Most were interns first. That’s the level that I think could make the most difference IMO. 

Your point about interns is very true and Gugny also made that point. 

[Man with No Name]

success in life is largely about networking and connections. There are people who are good and bad at using that tool--on both ends of the equation. But I don't think you can eliminate it. And I'm not really sure you should. 

 

people who strive to get to certain places in life should be aware of this and be savvy enough to make those connections. It won't be real or lasting if it doesn't happen organically. 

[DaggersEOD]

7 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Yeah, I see this happens. Belichick’s son comes immediately to mind. But I just don’t see it happening on a large enough scale to crowd out minorities. 
 

There is an old boys’ network in the league, and you seldom see black coaches be a part of it. That tells me it’s less about nepotism and more about racial bias. 
 

The league has several programs in place to promote development of minority coaches and administrative staff. To me, that shows the league understands it has an issue on it’s hands that needs to be addressed and they are taking action.  It may not seem sincere, but the proof is in the pudding. 

Start by making a rule that you can’t hire your kid if he has a mullet. 

I think the place we disagree is the prevalence of racism in NFL Exec level. 
 

My entire premise rests on my belief that they aren’t overtly racist. If they are then I am 100% wrong and more needs to be done. 
 

I respect your position. I just don’t agree (but acknowledge I don’t know the hearts of NFL Execs). 

[WotAGuy]

1 minute ago, DaggersEOD said:

I think the place we disagree is the prevalence of racism in NFL Exec level. 
 

My entire premise rests on my belief that they aren’t overtly racist. If they are then I am 100% wrong and more needs to be done. 
 

I respect your position. I just don’t agree (but acknowledge I don’t know the hearts of NFL Execs). 

I appreciate that.  I don’t think the NFL or its team owners are overtly racist. But I think there’s enough institutional bias that has been recognized and has resulted in corrective actions being taken. Some may not think it’s effective, or even sincere - and some of that may be true. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 1/22/2021 at 4:30 PM, Dablitzkrieg said:

 

By the Ghost of Curly Lambeau I believe he can do it!