2020 NFL: Offseason News and Notes

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,513
The Eastern Suburbs
The question raised is perfectly reasonable: Where do you draw the. line? That's what you should be responding to.

The answer is that you can't draw a line, certainly not at a time when race, sex -- hell, even age -- is considered a social construction.

The idea is unworkable and asinine.
And? Why did you post any of that to me?
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,424
Orlando
Some of you guys support the push to hire minority HCs and GMs (I’m not against this) but when anyone wants to discuss what constitutes a minority, you’re dismissive and claim racism. How can you expect to promote equality if you can’t discuss our differences without immediately degrading to that?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,821
Portsmouth, NH
Okay - Lane Kiffin, Jay Gruden, all of the Schurmurs, the Shula kids, Mike Nolan, Jim Mora, Brian Schottenheimer, etc. The list is pretty endless, and that's not even counting the guys who are kicking around as scouts, lower level coaches, and front office types.

And let's see McVay and Shanahan sustain success without the tailwind of a half-dozen top ten picks and clean salary cap sheets. Doug Marrone made the AFC Championship game with a stacked roster and I think he's garbage as a coach. McVay was underwhelming last season. Sometimes you get lucky for a year.

Regardless what you think of them or not, they didn't get their first shot because they were the hardest workers or the smartest applicants. They got it because of their family lineage. I imagine there are smarter people who just never got the shot to show it in the same way.

I don't know - maybe if you want to hire your son or the son of of your assistant coach to be a quality control coach or whatever, you have to hire a minority applicant at an equal position at the same time? Give enough people opportunity and many will show they deserve it.
Out of curiosity, what inside information, analysis or credentials do you possess to make this assessment with such certainty?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,425
Some of you guys support the push to hire minority HCs and GMs (I’m not against this) but when anyone wants to discuss what constitutes a minority, you’re dismissive and claim racism. How can you expect to promote equality if you can’t discuss our differences without immediately degrading to that?
Syd is better at deconstructing arguments, so I’ll wait for him to do the bulk, but this isn’t what we’re saying. It’s what you say we’re saying because you want to obfuscate the discussion with neato little “what ifs”.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,340
Some of you guys support the push to hire minority HCs and GMs (I’m not against this) but when anyone wants to discuss what constitutes a minority, you’re dismissive and claim racism. How can you expect to promote equality if you can’t discuss our differences without immediately degrading to that?
I support this, I haven't claimed racism once, and I've already said it doesn't matter what "constitues a minority"

What is your issue? Are you worried a team is going to hire a white man, but claim he's a minority to move their third round pick up a bit?

I can promise you, that would never happen.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,219
I don't give a shit about the debate about what constitutes a minority and I don't give a shit about how this is implemented. The NFL needs to do better at this, and the teams seem unwilling to do it on their own.
 
May 14, 2015
134
Out of curiosity, what inside information, analysis or credentials do you possess to make this assessment with such certainty?
I have none of the above. It's just logic. There are thousands of kids who play football every year and, because they're not terribly athletic, study it with a passion. What are the odds that the best candidates, in someone like Jon Gruden's case, just so happen to be the children of his good friends? Even more incredible, that the best candidate is your own son!

Clearly Shanahan and McVay made the most of their opportunities. Their full history is yet to be written, but they've worked hard to attain success early in their careers. Success isn't the issue, though, it's opportunity and they were gifted a crucial leg up that most everyone, particularly minorities, have no access to.

That seems to me to be the most fundamental issue here - the gridlock to entry. Every year, hundreds of these entry level positions open up across the league and it seems like the vetting process for many of them is "He's XXXXXX's kid? Yeah, sure, give him a shot." Minority coaches typically need to have played the game at a high level for that kind of a shot, meanwhile the coach's kid rarely has to make that same sacrifice. It's silly and you could solve a good deal of this problem - in a not just surface way - by forcing the Old Boys Network to open itself.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,425
I have none of the above. It's just logic. There are thousands of kids who play football every year and, because they're not terribly athletic, study it with a passion. What are the odds that the best candidates, in someone like Jon Gruden's case, just so happen to be the children of his good friends? Even more incredible, that the best candidate is your own son!

Clearly Shanahan and McVay made the most of their opportunities. Their full history is yet to be written, but they've worked hard to attain success early in their careers. Success isn't the issue, though, it's opportunity and they were gifted a crucial leg up that most everyone, particularly minorities, have no access to.

That seems to me to be the most fundamental issue here - the gridlock to entry. Every year, hundreds of these entry level positions open up across the league and it seems like the vetting process for many of them is "He's XXXXXX's kid? Yeah, sure, give him a shot." Minority coaches typically need to have played the game at a high level for that kind of a shot, meanwhile the coach's kid rarely has to make that same sacrifice. It's silly and you could solve a good deal of this problem - in a not just surface way - by forcing the Old Boys Network to open itself.
What makes you think those spots not filled by nepotism wouldn’t end up going to other white dudes, though?

Again, there’s 32 people in charge of making these decisions and the Rooney Rule is already in place. Either they feel the need to pander to fans, some owners are trying to put in place a system to motivate their racist partners, or it’s just a hollow gesture.

I’m not saying your point doesn’t have some validity. Same as with Ivy League schools, legacies heavily favor the status who. But, I feel like here it’s a bit of a distraction. The paucity of minority coaches isn’t due to people’s kids filling all the spots. It’s because the owners aren’t hiring minorities to the positions.

The whole thing is very NFL. Problem with players abusing women? Let’s start a committee about it and make some ads for awhile. If they really wanted to fix the problem, Suggs and Hill and Mixon wouldn’t be in the league.
 
Last edited:

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Here's what I don't like about the rule: moving a team's draft pick up X number of slots (anything less than 32), means that it penalizes the X number of teams that get jumped past, while having no effect on anyone else.

If anything, the reward should be like other comp picks, added at the end of rounds.

This would be my variation on this reward system when hiring a minority for these positions:
  • Head Coach or GM -- end of 2nd round.
  • OC, DC, or Head of Player Personnel -- end of 3rd round.
  • Position Coach -- end of 5th round.
  • Assistant Position Coach -- end of 7th round.
 

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
44
And? Why did you post any of that to me?
I posted this at you because RC asked a legit question about how a "person of color" is defined. And rather than take up that question, you resort to toolbaggery because he happened to reference an absurd definition of the term use by the KKK. Ridicule is easy. Thinking is hard.

It was a ridiculous example made up from a poster who also referenced the klan.
The poster was not "making up" examples. He was citing two public definitions of people of color -- one made by the KKK and a second, indirectly, by Elizabeth Warren. Again, it's easy to ridicule these, but can you offer a more precise, workable definition?

It's not enough to say "I don't care how it's defined." Well, someone needs to know, right? How it's defined will determine whether the program achieves its goals with any degree of efficiency (or at all), or whether it's yet another feel-good band-aid supported by whitey do-gooders who love strutting their values for the camera but refuse to acknowledge the fundamental relationship between design and results.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,214
Quincy, MA
I'd like them to approach it from another direction (or maybe do both) - deter teams from hiring nepotism candidates.

An absurd amount of positions, specifically entry level, across the NFL are filled with the children of coaches and GMs from across the league. Case in point - Steve Belichick. These people have simply done absolutely nothing more to earn these positions beyond winning the DNA sweepstakes and yet they're gifted an opportunity early in their careers in one of the most competitive industries. They get to build up coaching and scouting skills while minority candidates are typically playing the game, and then they get to roll into job interviews in future years with all kinds of experience on their resume.

Sure, it works sometimes when you get Kyle Shanahan or Sean McVay, but don't tell me either of those guys would have become coaches at such a young age if they were from different family trees. And please don't tell me that Steve Belichick was the best possible candidate for safeties coach of the Patriots. I think that can build up resentment from people when it comes to talking about this issue because legacy hires like these are never affected in scenarios where identity plays a role in hiring - they'll still always get the jobs, minority incentives or not.

I know i'm tilting at windmills here and it will never change, but to me this is the crux of why competitive industries so often don't include minorities. They are built on decades old networks of self-interested families that will only change the surface level optics and never the foundational problem.
BB worked his way up from the bottom with (I think) Marchibroda. He started out breaking down film and driving him to work everyday, for essentially pennies. He seems to expect that from most of his staff. I'm not going to quibble with any of the others you have named, but Steve Belichick wasn't named Safety coach because of his name. He's spent time as a grunt "coaching assistant" for 4 years without a promotion, until getting named the "safety coach". Did he get hired in as a grunt because of his last name? Probably. But getting hired into a grunt job that doesn't pay occurs in every industry (we usually call them interns). If you want to say he had an economic advantage once hired - allowing him to stay in that apprenticeship for 4 years at little pay, I'll agree. But BB seems to run a meritocracy in every area of his system. I mean Flores came in as a scouting assistant, and his BB apprenticeship program lasted 14 or so years moving around to seemingly every coaching position in the organization. Flores was named safeties coach in 2012, and 7 years later was named head coach of Miami. So if Steve is offered an interview in 7 years for head coach, it will have been 11 years in the league as a coach. I wouldn't see that as much of a nepotism situation, I'd see it as more of a "Steve worked his way up just like everyone else in Foxboro" situation. And to your other point, BB took on Jerod Mayo as Inside Linebackers coach. Not assistant coach, but coach. So I think that's an example of BB viewing Mayo (one year from his last year in uniform) as having the skills to hold the position - both from a technical/film/planning perspective and also as a coach. Pepper Johnson spent an eternity in the Pats coaching system after his playing career (BB loved him as a player). He started as a coaching assistant. He eventually left (I presume frustrated he never got promoted to the defensive coordinator position). Isn't that what we want to be happening - the person starts in the system where they are ready to start and advance when/if they are ready to? Got a playing background, but maybe aren't proven as a leader/coach type? Start as an assistant (Johnson). Have well known abilities with film/leadership/off the field work ethic, start as a coach (Mayo). Come in cold with no pro playing experience, start at the bottom as a grunt coaching assistant (Steve B). That is the definition of meritacracy - earn it.

I'm not disputing your overall point, I just think naming Steve B as an example of a do nothing nepotism hire to safeties coach is off base and waters down your point. Four years of grunt work doesn't sound appealing to many - regardless of last name. BB's record of how successful coaches in his system work their way up more than proves including his son as a nepotism hire is incorrect.

Note: I'd also argue that many children in the same profession as their parents often have an intuitive sense of the domain, having been around it when they were younger. They absorb lessons, approaches, without even realizing it. Couldn't one argue that BB himself was a nepotism hire in that he got hired by Marchibroda as a function of knowing the family so well? I mean, it seems to have worked out for him - even though he wasn't much of a player in college.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,138
Oregon
My gawd do we miss the baseball season and the NBA and NHL playoffs
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,214
Quincy, MA
Here's what I don't like about the rule: moving a team's draft pick up X number of slots (anything less than 32), means that it penalizes the X number of teams that get jumped past, while having no effect on anyone else.

If anything, the reward should be like other comp picks, added at the end of rounds.

This would be my variation on this reward system when hiring a minority for these positions:
  • Head Coach or GM -- end of 2nd round.
  • OC, DC, or Head of Player Personnel -- end of 3rd round.
  • Position Coach -- end of 5th round.
  • Assistant Position Coach -- end of 7th round.
Doesn't that penalize teams that don't have positions available? Would anyone fault Kraft for not replacing BB over this many years? Between 2000 and 2016 there were 142 head coaches hired in the league. Oakland has rotated the HC position 9 times. Seams a serious disadvantage to teams that try to remain stable and have a long apprenticeship of moving coaches up through the ranks.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,340
The poster was not "making up" examples. He was citing two public definitions of people of color -- one made by the KKK and a second, indirectly, by Elizabeth Warren. Again, it's easy to ridicule these, but can you offer a more precise, workable definition?

It's not enough to say "I don't care how it's defined." Well, someone needs to know, right? How it's defined will determine whether the program achieves its goals with any degree of efficiency (or at all), or whether it's yet another feel-good band-aid supported by whitey do-gooders who love strutting their values for the camera but refuse to acknowledge the fundamental relationship between design and results.
Unless I missed an NFL hiring of someone "1/32 Aleutian islander", or someone that's "an Elizabeth Warren-esque 1/1024", then yes he was absolutely making up examples.

And for the third or fourth time, my workable definition is IT DOESN'T NEED A DEFINITION.

Not one owner, not one, is going to hire someone that isn't clearly a minority and try to claim they are "an Elizabeth Warren-esque 1/1024" so they qualify to move up in the third round of the draft. They're not going to try to do that and accept the massive blowback they'd get from fans and media for such a piddling reward. There's already a Rooney rule now, right? Have you heard of any team that violated try to to claim that one of the white coaches they interviewed was actually a minority? No? You know why? Because it's asinine.

You're arguing for an example that has a 0% chance of happening.

Why are you doing that?

PS, trumpeting as an example as it's one made by the KKK, not great for your case.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
When you were typing that out, especially the part where you were quoting the Klu Klux Klan, did it sound right in your head?
Yes, perfectly. And I didn't quote the Klan. I summarized their position which was one drop of "bad" blood makes someone that type of person. Because the only choice besides some line arbitrarily at some portion of minority background is any minority background at all, which was the position of the Klan, a position that even the nazis recoiled from (if the History Channel didn't lie to me) in their anti-jew laws.

If you know of another threshold besides arbitrary intermediate point or an extreme, please share it. My point is that if you want this policy you should be prepared to end up with some decisions about which you'll be pretty unenthusiastic.

As others have said, why not try to improve the candidate pool instead?
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,317
Palo Alto
If you know of another threshold besides arbitrary intermediate point or an extreme, please share it. My point is that if you want this policy you should be prepared to end up with some decisions about which you'll be pretty unenthusiastic.
A very legitimate reply to this line of reasoning is to ask whether you can think of any actual examples of these edge cases you are describing that might plausibly come up either in the past or the future. If its very unlikely that there would ever be a grey area case, then its pointless pedantry to claim that the fact that race is not cleanly defined proves the idea is unworkable or asinine or whatever other adjectives people have been using here.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Unless I missed an NFL hiring of someone "1/32 Aleutian islander", or someone that's "an Elizabeth Warren-esque 1/1024", then yes he was absolutely making up examples.

And for the third or fourth time, my workable definition is IT DOESN'T NEED A DEFINITION.

Not one owner, not one, is going to hire someone that isn't clearly a minority and try to claim they are "an Elizabeth Warren-esque 1/1024" so they qualify to move up in the third round of the draft. They're not going to try to do that and accept the massive blowback they'd get from fans and media for such a piddling reward. There's already a Rooney rule now, right? Have you heard of any team that violated try to to claim that one of the white coaches they interviewed was actually a minority? No? You know why? Because it's asinine.

You're arguing for an example that has a 0% chance of happening.

Why are you doing that?

PS, trumpeting as an example as it's one made by the KKK, not great for your case.
So, the 31 guys who desperately wanted to punish the Patriots for the fact that footballs lose air pressure in cold weather, those guys wouldn't hire a guy who isn't "clearly a minority" and claim that he has some portion of minority background? They wouldn't be that competitive. I don't agree with you. If they can ignore the laws of physics to try to pull down a competitor I think they're perfectly willing to send in the paper work to the league that Joe Bob is 1/32 whatever. Blowback? Their fans will applaud them. "It's not how we woulda set things up but thems tha rules."
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,738
Mansfield MA
BB worked his way up from the bottom with (I think) Marchibroda. He started out breaking down film and driving him to work everyday, for essentially pennies. He seems to expect that from most of his staff. I'm not going to quibble with any of the others you have named, but Steve Belichick wasn't named Safety coach because of his name. He's spent time as a grunt "coaching assistant" for 4 years without a promotion, until getting named the "safety coach". Did he get hired in as a grunt because of his last name? Probably. But getting hired into a grunt job that doesn't pay occurs in every industry (we usually call them interns). If you want to say he had an economic advantage once hired - allowing him to stay in that apprenticeship for 4 years at little pay, I'll agree. But BB seems to run a meritocracy in every area of his system. I mean Flores came in as a scouting assistant, and his BB apprenticeship program lasted 14 or so years moving around to seemingly every coaching position in the organization. Flores was named safeties coach in 2012, and 7 years later was named head coach of Miami. So if Steve is offered an interview in 7 years for head coach, it will have been 11 years in the league as a coach. I wouldn't see that as much of a nepotism situation, I'd see it as more of a "Steve worked his way up just like everyone else in Foxboro" situation. And to your other point, BB took on Jerod Mayo as Inside Linebackers coach. Not assistant coach, but coach. So I think that's an example of BB viewing Mayo (one year from his last year in uniform) as having the skills to hold the position - both from a technical/film/planning perspective and also as a coach. Pepper Johnson spent an eternity in the Pats coaching system after his playing career (BB loved him as a player). He started as a coaching assistant. He eventually left (I presume frustrated he never got promoted to the defensive coordinator position). Isn't that what we want to be happening - the person starts in the system where they are ready to start and advance when/if they are ready to? Got a playing background, but maybe aren't proven as a leader/coach type? Start as an assistant (Johnson). Have well known abilities with film/leadership/off the field work ethic, start as a coach (Mayo). Come in cold with no pro playing experience, start at the bottom as a grunt coaching assistant (Steve B). That is the definition of meritacracy - earn it.

I'm not disputing your overall point, I just think naming Steve B as an example of a do nothing nepotism hire to safeties coach is off base and waters down your point. Four years of grunt work doesn't sound appealing to many - regardless of last name. BB's record of how successful coaches in his system work their way up more than proves including his son as a nepotism hire is incorrect.
I don't think you're wrong but nepotism structurally advantages white people because obviously there used to be overt racist discrimination and so few black people Belichick's age and even fewer Belichick's fathers age got opportunities. Thus jobs going to kids of coaches (and scouts, GMs, owners, etc.) are disproportionate going to white people.

Related to nepotism are referrals. When one of Belichick's entry-level guys wants to move up, Belichick says, "who do you know who can do your job?" So Daboll referred McDaniels, McDaniels referred Caserio, Caserio referred Schuplinski, etc. White people tend to know white people, so hiring based on referral is also going to help white people, since more white people already have a foot in the door.

Are nepotism and referral inherently racist? No. They can help black people, as in the case of Corey Frazier (Leslie's son) or Flores (a college teammate of DuJuan Daniels). But by and large, they're going to help white candidates more.

Note: I'd also argue that many children in the same profession as their parents often have an intuitive sense of the domain, having been around it when they were younger. They absorb lessons, approaches, without even realizing it. Couldn't one argue that BB himself was a nepotism hire in that he got hired by Marchibroda as a function of knowing the family so well? I mean, it seems to have worked out for him - even though he wasn't much of a player in college.
Re: children in the same profession as their parents, there are examples of nepotism above and beyond this. For instance, A.J. Foyt IV is a scouting assistant for the Colts. Yes, from the race car driving family. So obviously he didn't come up in football. He did marry one of Jim Irsay's daughters, however.

Bill Belichick absolutely was a nepotism hire and he has acknowledged he would never have gotten a foot in the door without his father's name.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
A very legitimate reply to this line of reasoning is to ask whether you can think of any actual examples of these edge cases you are describing that might plausibly come up either in the past or the future. If its very unlikely that there would ever be a grey area case, then its pointless pedantry to claim that the fact that race is not cleanly defined proves the idea is unworkable or asinine or whatever other adjectives people have been using here.
I didn't say the idea is unworkable or impossible. I said that it may result in some results that are unintended and about which the advocates would not be too enthusiastic. But no, I don't know the ancestry of many or probably really any NFL coaches.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,340
So, the 31 guys who desperately wanted to punish the Patriots for the fact that footballs lose air pressure in cold weather, those guys wouldn't hire a guy who isn't "clearly a minority" and claim that he has some portion of minority background? They wouldn't be that competitive. I don't agree with you. If they can ignore the laws of physics to try to pull down a competitor I think they're perfectly willing to send in the paper work to the league that Joe Bob is 1/32 whatever. Blowback? Their fans will applaud them. "It's not how we woulda set things up but thems tha rules."
Correct. They wouldn't.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Bill Belichick’s dad was a football coach, and McVay and Shanahan both made it to the Super Bowl very early in young careers. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you should cite the Kushners as examples, not the FDR’s. Some legacies deserve to be where they are. On the other hand, lots of NFL coaches are on their 4th or 5th chance as coordinators or head coaches, clean them out and I’ll agree, regardless of bloodlines.
The other thing, and I don't know how you'd ever do anything about this is chances in the same job. Yes, there was Marvin Lewis at the Bengals somehow lasting as long as he did. Though he had some good years but just couldn't get his team to advance in the playoffs. But it seems like there are a lot more Jeff Fishers who fail for a decade straight and somehow keep their jobs. The leash seems to be shorter for the minority coaches.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,317
Palo Alto
I didn't say the idea is unworkable or impossible. I said that it may result in some results that are unintended and about which the advocates would not be too enthusiastic. But no, I don't know the ancestry of many or probably really any NFL coaches.
I know you didn't, I quoted your reply but was really addressing several posts that have coalesced around the same argument, which I think is a very weak one.

To respond to your post in particular, the owners and the fans had no love for the Patriots when deflategate happened. The PR blowback for the league would be far greater if the Titans try claiming Mike Vrabel is 1/1024 black and ask for a draft pick.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I know you didn't, I quoted your reply but was really addressing several posts that have coalesced around the same argument, which I think is a very weak one.

To respond to your post in particular, the owners and the fans had no love for the Patriots when deflategate happened. The PR blowback for the league would be far greater if the Titans try claiming Mike Vrabel is 1/1024 black and ask for a draft pick.
Possibly. But they brush off the bad pub they get from sham interviews of minority candidates pretty easily.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,317
Palo Alto
Possibly. But they brush off the bad pub they get from sham interviews of minority candidates pretty easily.
I think you are being obtuse.

I haven't even mentioned how ludicrous is the idea that a coach who most would consider white or a questionable minority case is going to subsequently command the respect of an NFL locker room where on average 70% of the players are black.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,738
Mansfield MA
The other thing, and I don't know how you'd ever do anything about this is chances in the same job. Yes, there was Marvin Lewis at the Bengals somehow lasting as long as he did. Though he had some good years but just couldn't get his team to advance in the playoffs. But it seems like there are a lot more Jeff Fishers who fail for a decade straight and somehow keep their jobs. The leash seems to be shorter for the minority coaches.
A couple of the proposals do factor in making sure the person in question is retained. "A team's fourth-round pick would climb five spots in the draft preceding the coach's or GM's third year if he is still with the team."

Possibly. But they brush off the bad pub they get from sham interviews of minority candidates pretty easily.
There is an advocacy group here, The Fritz Pollard Alliance, that is heavily involved in all these discussions and would (rightfully) throw a shit fit if Jim Bob Cooter out of nowhere starts claiming to be black for special dispensation. I don't think this is actually all that complicated.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,303
I think you are being obtuse.

I haven't even mentioned how ludicrous is the idea that a coach who most would consider "white" or a questionable minority case is going to subsequently command the respect of an NFL locker room where on average 70% of the players are black.

It does seem strange that the Rooney rule is about ethnic minorities when the obvious problem is that most of the players are black and almost none of the coaches are.

edit: on a Jets note, I thought Bowles got a raw deal and the white GM (who sucked) got a pass from Jets fans. I could never tell if that was because football fans, in general, aren't that thoughtful but it felt like there was some bit of a race thing going on there.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think you are being obtuse.

I haven't even mentioned how ludicrous is the idea that a coach who most would consider "white" or a questionable minority case is going to subsequently command the respect of an NFL locker room where on average 70% of the players are black.
I'm not sure that it would be that big of a problem. Have players never accepted calls from refs that they didn't deserve? The Rams went to the super bowl instead of the saints because the authorities got it wrong. If the authorities give the Rams, for example, an extra draft pick are the Rams players really gonna care? I don't see that it's necessarily so. The Rams say, we zeroed in on Joe Bob because he's just the coach that we've been looking for and they add that, in the course of reviewing his background before the hiring we also realized that Joe Bob is 1/32 whatever. We didn't make the rules but the NFL tells us we're also entitled to such and such draft pick. I have a hard time seeing the Rams turning it down or their fans being upset about them getting the pick. Maybe I'm too cynical about fans. I don't think so.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,425
It does seem strange that the Rooney rule is about ethnic minorities when the obvious problem is that most of the players are black and almost none of the coaches are.
You don’t think having an Asian or Latino coach would bring more people to the sport the way basketball blew up in Asia after Yao? There has to be some reason they’re underrepresented among NFL players.
 
Last edited:

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
44
Okay, how about this guy? The Pats name Tyler Gaffney as their next head coach. Does he count?

 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,303
You don’t think having an Asian or Latino coach would bring more people to the sport the way basketball blew up in Asia after Mao? There has to be some reason they’re underrepresented among NFL players.
Not really. Players inspire young people more than coaches.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,425
Okay, how about this guy? The Pats name Tyler Gaffney as their next head coach. Does he count?

Please don’t do this. It’s icky. Cite an example of it occurring with the Rooney Rule if you want to make the argument.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,303
Please don’t do this. It’s icky. Cite an example of it occurring with the Rooney Rule if you want to make the argument.

Rivera is the closest thing and maybe because I'm not racist or too racist, idk, but I find it not quite right that that's the same thing as the Rooney Rule helping Mike Tomlin get an interview.
 

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
44
Please don’t do this. It’s icky. Cite an example of it occurring with the Rooney Rule if you want to make the argument.
Ah, geez. I've read and appreciated your posts for years, and now I'm going to give you shit.

It's "icky," is it? Is what I've done bad form? Look, you don't get to arbitrarily narrow the terms of the debate. If you support incentivizing teams to hire minorities, then you have to define what a minority is. Does Tyler Gaffney qualify as a minority, whether under the Rooney Rule or the new program the league is evidently considering?

What argument are you trying to make by simply posting a picture of someone?
I've already made my argument, very clearly, above. What I'm doing by posting this picture is to try to get those of you who are entirely incurious as to the definition of a minority to engage in a serious way in the central question. Look at Gaffney. Research his lineage. I don't care. But tell me if he qualifies.

You all need to define your terms. Otherwise, you're not serious thinkers.

PS -- I was just about to post a pic of Sam Bradford. He's part Cherokee!
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,317
Palo Alto
Ah, geez. I've read and appreciated your posts for years, and now I'm going to give you shit.

It's "icky," is it? Is what I've done bad form? Look, you don't get to arbitrarily narrow the terms of the debate. If you support incentivizing teams to hire minorities, then you have to define what a minority is. Does Tyler Gaffney qualify as a minority, whether under the Rooney Rule or the new program the league is evidently considering?



I've already made my argument, very clearly, above. What I'm doing by posting this picture is to try to get those of you who are entirely incurious as to the definition of a minority to engage in a serious way in the central question. Look at Gaffney. Research his lineage. I don't care. But tell me if he qualifies.

You all need to define your terms. Otherwise, you're not serious thinkers.

PS -- I was just about to post a pic of Sam Bradford. He's part Cherokee!
No, you dont have to define something to speak clearly and meaningfully about it. It takes like three seconds of introspection to see that is the case. And I enjoy (and by enjoy, I mean the opposite) the "you're not serious thinkers" postscript.

Calculus was developed in the 1600s. Limits weren't defined until the 1850s.
 

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
44
There's already a Rooney rule now, right? Have you heard of any team that violated try to to claim that one of the white coaches they interviewed was actually a minority? No? You know why? Because it's asinine.
You're aware that the Rooney Rule applies to ethnic minorities, too, right? Let me guess: you're not interested in how that term is defined either. In your world everyone is either obviously white or obviously not.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,340
Ah, geez. I've read and appreciated your posts for years, and now I'm going to give you shit.

It's "icky," is it? Is what I've done bad form? Look, you don't get to arbitrarily narrow the terms of the debate. If you support incentivizing teams to hire minorities, then you have to define what a minority is. Does Tyler Gaffney qualify as a minority, whether under the Rooney Rule or the new program the league is evidently considering?



I've already made my argument, very clearly, above. What I'm doing by posting this picture is to try to get those of you who are entirely incurious as to the definition of a minority to engage in a serious way in the central question. Look at Gaffney. Research his lineage. I don't care. But tell me if he qualifies.

You all need to define your terms. Otherwise, you're not serious thinkers.


PS -- I was just about to post a pic of Sam Bradford. He's part Cherokee!
Yes.

You aren't serious thinkers if you're not sitting around demanding to know who is enough of a minority to qualify an NFL team to move up a small amount of spots in the third round of the NFL draft.

That is where serious thinking happens.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,317
Palo Alto
You're aware that the Rooney Rule applies to ethnic minorities, too, right? Let me guess: you're not interested in how that term is defined either. In your world everyone is either obviously white or obviously not.
Are you interested in questioning why you need to define a word before applying it? If college teachers asked you not to watch porn in the middle of the lecture is the only serious thinker in the room the student who asks "Um sir I am going to need a clear definition of what porn is before I adhere to these demands."
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,340
You're aware that the Rooney Rule applies to ethnic minorities, too, right? Let me guess: you're not interested in how that term is defined either. In your world everyone is either obviously white or obviously not.
Correct. I don't give a flying eff how a minority is defined. I'm not sending out for 23 and Me test kits to see if I can work around trying to game the system.

Correct. Absolutely correct.

I'm not trying to fix issues that aren't there.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,303
Outside of this weird debate, do we know who came up with this policy?

It seems like if someone wants to be a coach or GM, they need to want to do it, be willing to be mentored, and find a mentor. I know Belichick mentored Ozzie, Romeo, and Flores. I know Dungy (who I don't like but credit where credit due) has been a mentor to other black coaches, who else?

I'm interested in what guys like Dungy and Belichick think would be appropriate.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,214
Quincy, MA
I don't think you're wrong but nepotism structurally advantages white people because obviously there used to be overt racist discrimination and so few black people Belichick's age and even fewer Belichick's fathers age got opportunities. Thus jobs going to kids of coaches (and scouts, GMs, owners, etc.) are disproportionate going to white people.

Related to nepotism are referrals. When one of Belichick's entry-level guys wants to move up, Belichick says, "who do you know who can do your job?" So Daboll referred McDaniels, McDaniels referred Caserio, Caserio referred Schuplinski, etc. White people tend to know white people, so hiring based on referral is also going to help white people, since more white people already have a foot in the door.

Are nepotism and referral inherently racist? No. They can help black people, as in the case of Corey Frazier (Leslie's son) or Flores (a college teammate of DuJuan Daniels). But by and large, they're going to help white candidates more.


Re: children in the same profession as their parents, there are examples of nepotism above and beyond this. For instance, A.J. Foyt IV is a scouting assistant for the Colts. Yes, from the race car driving family. So obviously he didn't come up in football. He did marry one of Jim Irsay's daughters, however.

Bill Belichick absolutely was a nepotism hire and he has acknowledged he would never have gotten a foot in the door without his father's name.
I'd say that good managers tend to hire the best person for the job, regardless of the various categories we might want to drop the candidate in.

Speaking to the Pats here, it seems the biggest hurdle within the Pats organization is finding a person who eats, breathes, sleeps football with sufficient talent to put on the uniform, and the same person without the physical talent to begin the multiyear slog of becoming a valuable coach. The latter prospect also needs to be in an economic position to be able to do it with the paltry money offered that position.

Given that, I maintain that the issue isn't as much about race as it is economics. Most organizations are going to expect that a coach will have proven themselves (obvious exceptions apply - Vrabel, etc.) as a coach before handing them the HC reigns, or even positions of significant importance. If you aren't a player, you have to start at square one. How many of the eat/breathe/sleep football types that would be interested in the entry level slot at Foxboro are going to be able to afford that 4 year slog to get through the BB bachelors degree and then start working as a coach with "real" responsibilities? If the NFL wants to solve this problem it can't do it at the top (or only there) - it has to develop a program where they expect teams to properly fund (minimum coaching wage?) the staff at the bottom of the coaching hierarchy to allow a broader pool of economic prospects to want to take the chance. Secondly, the NFL should mandate that each team have a minimum number of these entry level coaching positions. Then that WR from Div 2 who blew out his knee senior year and still graduated with his management degree can approach BB and say I'm all in, knowing he can still pay the bills - regardless of his prior economic position. Whoever can demonstrate growth and coaching improvement moves up the ladder, just like we want to happen.

If I were the NFL, I'd create a 2 year Coaching Academy. I'd grab the best of the football coaches as they retire and ask them to design and instruct courses that educate students in how to teach the technical skills of football, maybe a semester at every position. Dante, you retired from the Pats, would you design and teach a semester of OL technique - only 2-3 months work every year? Every student learns both offensive and defensive principles, as well as special teams. Every single aspect of coaching to make them ready to drop into any teams structure and have a fighting chance. I'd grab legenday coaches from other sports and have them teach leadership, and coaching principles in general. Bring NFL security in to teach them the dark side of the players lives, and risks. Psychologists to instruct them in how to make sure athletes that need support, or that are having a hard time get the resources they need. Soup to Nuts. Where to get the student pool? Have the teams identify and refer players that they don't believe can make the NFL but have something more to offer. The draft choices that get cut, the UDFA players that might have a knack in the film room, but won't ever get on the field. Ask the coaches to identify the players they think could be good coaches. Maybe every team gets to sponsor 2 players a year into the coaches academy and then take them back when they graduate, as knowledgeable coaching candidates. Sign them to a 4 year employment contract, 2 years at the academy, and 2 years in the organization. After that, let the cream rise to the top. One would think that the coaching academy students would have the same diversity ratios as players in the league do - and therefore the pipeline of young coaches would begin to be filled with a coaching pool being taught by the best. I'd set it so that retired players can choose to sign up as well (say within 3 years of their last season) - to ease their way into coaching, exposing them to knowledge they maybe didn't get on their own way up. Again, the same opportunity ratios as players in the league. This approach provides a coaching pipeline of trained candidates who even if they can't get traction at the NFL level (in the 2 years back with the recommending team) are more qualified to coach at other levels of football - leading to a more diverse representation throughout football. I know it's not perfect, but I think there are some major positives of this approach.

I just think approaches where we force owners who have a particular coach in mind to pay lip service to the Rooney rule isn't nearly as effective as we would want.
 

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
44
No, you dont have to define something to speak clearly and meaningfully about it. It takes like three seconds of introspection to see that is the case. And I enjoy (and by enjoy, I mean the opposite) the "you're not serious thinkers" postscript.

Calculus was developed in the 1600s. Limits weren't defined until the 1850s.
Huh? Can you speak clearly and meaningfully about freedom, or religion, or socialism, or capitalism, or the First Amendment without being able to define it? I mean, maybe you think you can, but I doubt it.

And I don't see what your calculus example has to do with anything. Language is symbolic, abstract, and representational. The language of math is not, or at least much less so.

Are you interested in questioning why you need to define a word before applying it?
How does one meaningfully, rationally apply a concept without understanding it first?

If college teachers asked you not to watch porn in the middle of the lecture is the only serious thinker in the room the student who asks "Um sir I am going to need a clear definition of what porn is before I adhere to these demands."
Well, maybe not the only serious thinker, but perhaps the most independent one. This is exactly why I don't prohibit my students from watching porn. I'm afraid they'd ask me to define it, and I wouldn't be able to!
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
12,175
I think the new incentive is dumb. It seems like the kind of rule that people who don't really understand the problem would come up with because they honestly think it is a solution. I doubt that modest gains in the draft will be enough to push many candidates of color past another candidate, and it doesn't address the root of the problem.

A poster earlier mentioned that the problem is the league doesn't do a good job developing coaches in the pipeline, so that the market remains bare. A majority of head coaching hires appear to be former offensive coordinators and QB coaches. Since the men who hold those positions were typically QBs at some point, if not the NFL, in college, the root of the problem, to me, comes back to both a bias in a lack of black quarterbacks, and a bias in hiring offensive-minded individuals for head coaching positions, which is a trend in the league. 19 of the 32 coaches in the NFL come from offensive backgrounds, and a number of the defensive-background coaches have been around for a really long time (BB, Tomlin, Carroll, Rivera). The trendy highers tend to be the offensive guys. That doesn't mean that offensive-minded guys are the best hires, a lot of the aforementioned successful coaches in the league were defense guys, but the rush to get the next offensive genius is going to hamper the chances of more black candidates emerging.

We know that black athletes who are good QBs in high school are frequently encouraged to switch positions in college (this also happens in the NFL, but probably less frequently). A lot of times that is a good thing for the player, they end up going further playing another position than QB, but at the same time that means less black QBs are entering college systems, which could eventually spark a promising player's potential to begin coaching as a QB/WRs coach, on the path to becoming an offensive playcaller. Most of the NFL coaches were not great professional players, but most of them did play in college and got their start coaching as an assistant at the collegiate level. Over the years the entire football system has gotten better at promoting black quarterbacks, so hopefully the pool of black QB coaches and offensive coordinators will grow as an effect of that.

Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but I don't think most NFL organizations are passing up amazing head coaching options because they are black.There could be situations were two candidates are basically equals, but a biased owner or GM may chose a white coach over a coach of color, but I think the NFL is so competitive that teams are not going to pass over someone that they think would be a great coach, but doesn't take them because they are black. It of course, is possible that the REASON they don't see them as a great coach is because they are black. I'd say that out of the current former NFL coaches who are men of color (Marvin Lewis, Hugh Jackson, Herm Edwards, Lovie Smith, Mike Singletary, Vance Joseph) I don't think that they would inspire many fanbases if they were brought in.

The problem is that the talent pool is small. I think that more black quarterbacks at both the pro and collegiate level will lead to more black assistants and coordinators, which will create more attractive candidates for head coaching positions.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,513
The Eastern Suburbs
I posted this at you because RC asked a legit question about how a "person of color" is defined. And rather than take up that question, you resort to toolbaggery because he happened to reference an absurd definition of the term use by the KKK. Ridicule is easy. Thinking is hard.



The poster was not "making up" examples. He was citing two public definitions of people of color -- one made by the KKK and a second, indirectly, by Elizabeth Warren. Again, it's easy to ridicule these, but can you offer a more precise, workable definition?

It's not enough to say "I don't care how it's defined." Well, someone needs to know, right? How it's defined will determine whether the program achieves its goals with any degree of efficiency (or at all), or whether it's yet another feel-good band-aid supported by whitey do-gooders who love strutting their values for the camera but refuse to acknowledge the fundamental relationship between design and results.
You have presented at least four logical fallacies in this post alone and nothing you say is relevant.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,513
The Eastern Suburbs
Yes, perfectly. And I didn't quote the Klan. I summarized their position which was one drop of "bad" blood makes someone that type of person. Because the only choice besides some line arbitrarily at some portion of minority background is any minority background at all, which was the position of the Klan, a position that even the nazis recoiled from (if the History Channel didn't lie to me) in their anti-jew laws.

If you know of another threshold besides arbitrary intermediate point or an extreme, please share it. My point is that if you want this policy you should be prepared to end up with some decisions about which you'll be pretty unenthusiastic.

As others have said, why not try to improve the candidate pool instead?
Why do you think anything the Klu Klux Klan believes is relevant to anything at all? When you argue twice that the KKK is a potential contribution to this alleged proposal do you feel it really is? Is this the line you are drawing?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,738
Mansfield MA
I'd say that good managers tend to hire the best person for the job, regardless of the various categories we might want to drop the candidate in.

Speaking to the Pats here, it seems the biggest hurdle within the Pats organization is finding a person who eats, breathes, sleeps football with sufficient talent to put on the uniform, and the same person without the physical talent to begin the multiyear slog of becoming a valuable coach. The latter prospect also needs to be in an economic position to be able to do it with the paltry money offered that position.
I agree that's what they're looking for. There's a story that when they hired Matt Patricia, they offered him the job but almost rescinded it right away because he said he had to check with his wife. They are not overly concerned with credentials. They are looking for sickos, basically.

Given that, I maintain that the issue isn't as much about race as it is economics. Most organizations are going to expect that a coach will have proven themselves (obvious exceptions apply - Vrabel, etc.) as a coach before handing them the HC reigns, or even positions of significant importance. If you aren't a player, you have to start at square one. How many of the eat/breathe/sleep football types that would be interested in the entry level slot at Foxboro are going to be able to afford that 4 year slog to get through the BB bachelors degree and then start working as a coach with "real" responsibilities? If the NFL wants to solve this problem it can't do it at the top (or only there) - it has to develop a program where they expect teams to properly fund (minimum coaching wage?) the staff at the bottom of the coaching hierarchy to allow a broader pool of economic prospects to want to take the chance.
My understanding from reading about this in the Patriots, Ravens, and other organizations - they see the paltry pay as a feature, not a bug. They want guys scraping by, sleeping on couches, etc. They like that it weeds out tons of potential candidates; do you know how many people want jobs in football? They want to filter that down to just these crazos who will do anything. The last thing they want is a broader pool.

If I were the NFL, I'd create a 2 year Coaching Academy. I'd grab the best of the football coaches as they retire and ask them to design and instruct courses that educate students in how to teach the technical skills of football, maybe a semester at every position. Dante, you retired from the Pats, would you design and teach a semester of OL technique - only 2-3 months work every year? Every student learns both offensive and defensive principles, as well as special teams. Every single aspect of coaching to make them ready to drop into any teams structure and have a fighting chance. I'd grab legenday coaches from other sports and have them teach leadership, and coaching principles in general. Bring NFL security in to teach them the dark side of the players lives, and risks. Psychologists to instruct them in how to make sure athletes that need support, or that are having a hard time get the resources they need. Soup to Nuts. Where to get the student pool? Have the teams identify and refer players that they don't believe can make the NFL but have something more to offer. The draft choices that get cut, the UDFA players that might have a knack in the film room, but won't ever get on the field. Ask the coaches to identify the players they think could be good coaches. Maybe every team gets to sponsor 2 players a year into the coaches academy and then take them back when they graduate, as knowledgeable coaching candidates. Sign them to a 4 year employment contract, 2 years at the academy, and 2 years in the organization. After that, let the cream rise to the top. One would think that the coaching academy students would have the same diversity ratios as players in the league do - and therefore the pipeline of young coaches would begin to be filled with a coaching pool being taught by the best. I'd set it so that retired players can choose to sign up as well (say within 3 years of their last season) - to ease their way into coaching, exposing them to knowledge they maybe didn't get on their own way up. Again, the same opportunity ratios as players in the league. This approach provides a coaching pipeline of trained candidates who even if they can't get traction at the NFL level (in the 2 years back with the recommending team) are more qualified to coach at other levels of football - leading to a more diverse representation throughout football. I know it's not perfect, but I think there are some major positives of this approach.
You've kind of described The Scouting Academy (which is a shorter-term program), which has helped some people get hired. I think most teams would rather train guys themselves from the ground up though.

And again, there are structural problems that exist at the top, not the bottom. You've got only two black GMs and meanwhile teams are hiring dudes like John Elway and John Lynch who have basically no qualifications.

We know that black athletes who are good QBs in high school are frequently encouraged to switch positions in college (this also happens in the NFL, but probably less frequently). A lot of times that is a good thing for the player, they end up going further playing another position than QB, but at the same time that means less black QBs are entering college systems, which could eventually spark a promising player's potential to begin coaching as a QB/WRs coach, on the path to becoming an offensive playcaller. Most of the NFL coaches were not great professional players, but most of them did play in college and got their start coaching as an assistant at the collegiate level. Over the years the entire football system has gotten better at promoting black quarterbacks, so hopefully the pool of black QB coaches and offensive coordinators will grow as an effect of that.
I think there's still a black quarterback issue. An incredible talent like Cam will get a chance to stick at quarterback, but where are the black Brian Hoyers? Those are the guys who usually become coaches. Think about all the lousy white QBs who stick around for years on rosters because they're "smart" and "know the offense."

Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but I don't think most NFL organizations are passing up amazing head coaching options because they are black.There could be situations were two candidates are basically equals, but a biased owner or GM may chose a white coach over a coach of color, but I think the NFL is so competitive that teams are not going to pass over someone that they think would be a great coach, but doesn't take them because they are black. It of course, is possible that the REASON they don't see them as a great coach is because they are black.
I don't think it's overt racism. But I think to a lot of owners the platonic ideal of an NFL coach is still Tom Landry (/insert your favorite white guy) and it's way harder to envision a black man in that role.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,085
Hingham, MA
I think there's still a black quarterback issue. An incredible talent like Cam will get a chance to stick at quarterback, but where are the black Brian Hoyers? Those are the guys who usually become coaches. Think about all the lousy white QBs who stick around for years on rosters because they're "smart" and "know the offense."
Is this part really true though? Or are the %s similar. We have seen guys like Vick, Vince Young, and Tavaris Jackson stick around a while as backup QBs. There’s probably a few others I have forgotten. Maybe it is truly an issue, unsure.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,738
Mansfield MA
Is this part really true though? Or are the %s similar. We have seen guys like Vick, Vince Young, and Tavaris Jackson stick around a while as backup QBs. There’s probably a few others I have forgotten. Maybe it is truly an issue, unsure.
Jackson is a good example, and there are a handful of others (Tyrod Taylor, Geno Smith, Jacoby Brissett). Vick only hung around two years as a backup after his Philly years. Vince Young only really had one year as a backup (the "Dream Team" year).

I have not studied this, however. It would be a good study.