Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Irrelevant to the topic, but what's the point of starting every other tweet with "breaking"?

 

Russian invasion was breaking news, not that one guy joins another guys lawsuit (even moreso when this was hinted long time ago).

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, No_Matter_What said:

Irrelevant to the topic, but what's the point of starting every other tweet with "breaking"?

 

Russian invasion was breaking news, not that one guy joins another guys lawsuit (even moreso when this was hinted long time ago).

 

I don’t know but I read yesterday that shefter makes 9 mill/yr

Posted
9 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

I have plenty of sympathy for Blacks, but from a practical point of view, this is a lot of baloney.   I mean, each of these guys may have been discriminated against, but proving it with the kind of stuff they're alleging doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  

 

Wilks was 3-13 in one year as head coach of the Cardinals.  Lots of guys have been one and done after going 3-13.   He blames his failure on the GM.   And to say if he'd been the head coach and Kyler Murray, he would have succeeded too, is total speculation.  So is that he wanted to draft Josh Allen.   It's all just speculation. 

 

And to complain that you got the interview strictly because of the Rooney Rule, and you weren't a serious candidate because they already had someone in mind, well, that happens often too.  The Rooney Rule doesn't require the team to hire a Black candidate, and it doesn't give a Black candidate a free ride to head coaching job just because the Black candidate thinks he was a better choice.   The rule is designed as much as anything to give Black candidates the opportunity to develop interview skills in a very selective market.   Most guys don't get hired in the first head-coaching interview.  

 

There seems to be very little evidence of racial discrimination.  "I didn't get hired" is not evidence. 

  • Agree 3
Posted (edited)

I think Horton has a case, given Mularkey's story. If that isn't proof of a "sham interview" I don't know what is. Mularkey would have no reason to make that up either, as it makes him look bad. 

 

Not so sure on Wilks. I mean, he got a raw deal but he also seemed not up to the job if I recall correctly. I mean, there's the Jim Tomsulas of the world too, and maybe Wilks was similarly not ready. 

 

but IMO of all these guys Horton has the most compelling  case. 

Edited by TheFunPolice
Posted

The rooney rule itself is what is humiliating and to blame.

 

The Titans knew who their head coach pick was, but the rule forces them to find someone who fits a particular designation in order to be cleared to hire the guy they know they want? Mularkey wasnt even an outside candidate, he was the interim head coach at the time. 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, CapeBreton said:

I believe the Cardinals traded up for Rosen but still, good thing they didn’t listen to Wilks!

 

I'm sure Pete Carroll would've drafted Tom Brady if it weren't for being fired from the Patriots and replaced by Belichick too.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

I think Horton has a case, given Mularkey's story. If that isn't proof of a "sham interview" I don't know what is. Mularkey would have no reason to make that up either, as it makes him look bad. 

 

Not so sure on Wilks. I mean, he got a raw deal but he also seemed not up to the job if I recall correctly. I mean, there's the Jim Tomsulas of the world too, and maybe Wilks was similarly not ready. 

 

but IMO of all these guys Horton has the most compelling  case. 

 

I think all three guys didn't get fair shakes as head coach. 

 

Not one them has anything to do with race, though. It's just at any given time 80% of the teams in this league are run incompetently, negligently, or both. 

 

Black, white or whatever else, the fact is if you're a head coach in this league there's a high likelihood you're gong to flame out for reasons far beyond your control. It's a shame, but it is what it is. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

I think Horton has a case, given Mularkey's story. If that isn't proof of a "sham interview" I don't know what is. Mularkey would have no reason to make that up either, as it makes him look bad. 

 

Not so sure on Wilks. I mean, he got a raw deal but he also seemed not up to the job if I recall correctly. I mean, there's the Jim Tomsulas of the world too, and maybe Wilks was similarly not ready. 

 

but IMO of all these guys Horton has the most compelling  case. 

In Mularkey's case he was already the coach.  The team decided they wanted to stick with him.  So, when a team decides they want to hire the interim coach full time, isn't every other interview a sham interview?  The only reason Tennessee had to put on the dog & pony show was the Rooney Rule, which at times forces teams to conduct interviews in spite of having already chosen someone within the organization.  Recently the Bills had to do the same thing before hiring Dorsey as OC.  Internal hires where one candidate is the obvious choice should not be subject to a rule that makes a team interview people from outside the organization just for window dressing.  

  • Agree 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I have plenty of sympathy for Blacks, but from a practical point of view, this is a lot of baloney.   I mean, each of these guys may have been discriminated against, but proving it with the kind of stuff they're alleging doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  

 

Wilks was 3-13 in one year as head coach of the Cardinals.  Lots of guys have been one and done after going 3-13.   He blames his failure on the GM.   And to say if he'd been the head coach and Kyler Murray, he would have succeeded too, is total speculation.  So is that he wanted to draft Josh Allen.   It's all just speculation. 

 

And to complain that you got the interview strictly because of the Rooney Rule, and you weren't a serious candidate because they already had someone in mind, well, that happens often too.  The Rooney Rule doesn't require the team to hire a Black candidate, and it doesn't give a Black candidate a free ride to head coaching job just because the Black candidate thinks he was a better choice.   The rule is designed as much as anything to give Black candidates the opportunity to develop interview skills in a very selective market.   Most guys don't get hired in the first head-coaching interview.  

 

There seems to be very little evidence of racial discrimination.  "I didn't get hired" is not evidence. 

I agree with this.   The move has also been to hiring from the offensive side of the ball, not defensive.  That's why they are starting the efforts to move more black coaches to that side of the ball.  As to the Cardinals not wanting to move up to grab Josh Allen, I was under the impression they tried to move up but the Bills beat them to it.  Recall, no one was dealing above pick 7.

Posted
29 minutes ago, CapeBreton said:

I believe the Cardinals traded up for Rosen but still, good thing they didn’t listen to Wilks!

I love when some media hack tries to revise history. As you stated, Arizona traded up for Rosen, they did not stay put. Arizona wanted to trade up for Josh, but the Bills had more draft ammo.  Arizona was 15th with one 2nd round pick, the Bills were 12th with 2 second round picks to offer.  Arizona never had the draft capital to compete with the Bills. 

 

I remember a lot of draft graders saying the Bills gave up too much for Allen while applauding Arizona for trading up 5 spots (same number of spots that the Bills moved up from) in order to beat Miami to Rosen.    

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, No_Matter_What said:

Irrelevant to the topic, but what's the point of starting every other tweet with "breaking"?

 

Russian invasion was breaking news, not that one guy joins another guys lawsuit (even moreso when this was hinted long time ago).

 

Breaking news I believe is news that hasn't been reported before,that this is the first report of it.

Posted

NFL introduces Rooney Rule requiring teams to interview people who may not be the right candidate for the job. People are interviewed based on skin color and don't get said job. So by that logic wouldn't every minority candidate ever that wasn't hired have a case?

 

I went for a job interview and didn't get it. I don't know why and neither do these candidates. To assume racism without proof is interesting to say the least. More millionaires pandering to people who may actually be oppressed and I'm sure the Twitter mob is going to take the bait.

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

I love when some media hack tries to revise history. As you stated, Arizona traded up for Rosen, they did not stay put. Arizona wanted to trade up for Josh, but the Bills had more draft ammo.  Arizona was 15th with one 2nd round pick, the Bills were 12th with 2 second round picks to offer.  Arizona never had the draft capital to compete with the Bills. 

 

I remember a lot of draft graders saying the Bills gave up too much for Allen while applauding Arizona for trading up 5 spots (same number of spots that the Bills moved up from) in order to beat Miami to Rosen.    

 

Yeah I was under the understanding that Arizona wanted Josh Allen too, but couldn't get ahead of the Bills.

 

Although if Allen was their guy, why would they then trade up for Rosen? Was that to get ahead of Miami who may have wanted him? Definitely a head scratcher. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, CapeBreton said:

 

Yeah I was under the understanding that Arizona wanted Josh Allen too, but couldn't get ahead of the Bills.

 

Although if Allen was their guy, why would they then trade up for Rosen? Was that to get ahead of Miami who may have wanted him? Definitely a head scratcher. 

Carson Palmer retired & they had no long term answer at QB, so they felt that they had to draft a QB.  If the Bills had lost out on Josh Allen, at some point early in the draft, they would have selected a QB.  The Browns, Jets, Bills and Cardinals all had boxed themselves into a corner that made it necessary to draft a QB in 2018.  The class was supposed to be the best since 2004 and each team had made alternate plans if their top guy was already drafted.  

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...