4 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

Why don't they focus on fixing the pipeline that gets more minority coaches into offensive coaching positions, since most head coaches are from offensive backgrounds? More minority coaches on offense will lead to more minority candidates for head coach.

That's a good point - I think I read that ~35% of NFL assistant coaches are minorities, which would seem to track with US demographics.  I don't think there is a dearth of black DCs - it's just like you said, the offensive side isn't balanced the same.  I'm not sure, if that has to do with the racial history of the QB position or coaching nepotism, etc.  Better minds than me...

Of course, what's the goal here: a percentage -or- an actual meritocracy?  I'd hope the latter, and generally winning matters in the NFL so I'm optimistic.

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

This. if a bad owner wants to keep getting bad coaches(regardless of color) thats on them

No one should tell someone who they can or cant hire

Right and no one should tell someone who they can or can't rent to, or seat in their restaurant, and all the other glorious stuff you could do in the 1950s.  Because allowing people to discriminate on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and the rest was such a great system.

1 minute ago, wussbasket said:

Coaching is all about relationships and who you know. You see this with every GM or coaching hire, so and so were roommates in college or whatever. Remember when McVay worked out for the Rams? Everyone wanted their own McVay, a 30 year old offensive genius. Did teams evaluate the traits that make McVay great and look for that in other candidates? Nope. They literally just started interviewing anyone that McVay knew.

Kingsbury got a job for being friends with McVay

8 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

I’m sure , and I’m sure qualified caucasians have been passed up .

I don’t feel forcing owners to interview someone , is the right thing to do .

I think you are missing an important point.  It's a rule the owners want.  No one has imposed this rule on them.  They agreed to it. If they didn't like the rule, it wouldn't exist.  The owners have it because they want it.  They have agreed to it meaning they haven't been forced to do anything.  It was voluntarily adopted by all of the teams.  They are the people voting for these rules and seeking them for all of the teams.  No owner has ever been forced to interview anyone.    

One final point, no qualified caucasian has ever been passed up because of his race.  

7 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

In some respects, you can say that the Flores lawsuit is him flexing to get a job elsewhere by shaming a team into hiring him and not being added to the lawsuit. What an ass

I had the same initial reaction to this as I did with the Kaepernick situation. Flores became available, was dejected that teams weren't busting his door down trying to give him a bunch of money, and he just decided to blow it all up and make accusations that are highly unlikely to be objectively substantiated. Even if this is all true, we probably can't ever know and, barring substantial evidence to the contrary, the court of public Twitter will side with him due to the NFL's dubious history with race issues.

I agree that most of the disparity comes from down the pipeline. And if there is bias or racism, it requires legit proof. Serious accusations should always require serious evidence. Racism should be held in the same standard as say pedophilia. If you accuse someone of being a pedophile, typically you need proof. Today, racism accusations can ruin careers/reputations/lives. Saying "I felt they didn't take me seriously" isn't good enough, sorry. Maybe you can say that off the record to the interviewers, but throwing damaging labels around is irresponsible without proof.

But today's society is going all in on "equity" which is one of the most toxic ideologies catching on right now, and this subject could fall under that category in some ways.

Overall, I'm not sure what can be done. You can't force an organization to hire someone they don't want. That's equity. You can make sure equality of opportunity is enforced, and that's what the interview process is for. But no one is owed a job in the NFL. I see a lot of talk about Coach X "deserves" a job. No. He may deserve an interview. Especially in this field where qualifications are entirely subjective. We see super successful coordinators bomb out as head coaches all the time.

1 minute ago, Waiting4Someday said:

That's a good point - I think I read that ~35% of NFL assistant coaches are minorities, which would seem to track with US demographics.  I don't think there is a dearth of black DCs - it's just like you said, the offensive side isn't balanced the same.  I'm not sure, if that has to do with the racial history of the QB position or coaching nepotism, etc.  Better minds than me...

Of course, what's the goal here: a percentage -or- an actual meritocracy?  I'd hope the latter, and generally winning matters in the NFL so I'm optimistic.

Head Coaching jobs and GM jobs are all about relationships you have built. Start fixing the pipeline at the lower end and overtime coaches will rise on merit and increasing the pool of minorities to choose from. Look, idk if offensive minded or defensive minded head coach is better at the position, but the majority of HC's seem to come from the offensive side of the ball.

Just increase the pool to choose from and the rest will happen naturally. Fix the problem, not the symptom.

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Kingsbury got a job for being friends with McVay

There were memes about hiring McVays Starbucks barista. There were so many coaches that were loosely tied to him that got interviews.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

good grief 

41 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

The bombshell report is more that if the owner offered to pay Flores 100k extra to lose games.

Yep. That’s a landscape changing allegation and implies that this thing is rigged (to be fair, tanking for Burrow was obviously the right choice). It was practical but would be a black eye.

13 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

Maybe the Giants will try to settle this lawsuit with a medium soda.

NO!!!  It's going to be a LARGE soda!

..... but there will be quite a bit of ice in there ..... 

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

NO!!!  It's going to be a LARGE soda!

..... but there will be quite a bit of ice in there ..... 

Let's not get crazy now. Save the ice for something else.

Schoen came from Buffalo so he wanted his guy in Daboll. It’s not the first or the last time someone will hire someone based off of a prior relationship. That’s the same for any industry. Is it biased? Sure. But not sure how you can prove racism there. Flores had a fallout with Miami’s GM, so if another GM looked at that and took him off their board, that’s their decision. 
 

The bigger issue is the Ross accusation paying him off to tank. That’s a bombshell. 

2 minutes ago, Thrive said:

Yep. That’s a landscape changing allegation and implies that this thing is rigged (to be fair, tanking for Burrow was obviously the right choice). It was practical but would be a black eye.

Probably doesn't help the league is getting more and more involved with gambling sponsors too.

14 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Martin Frank vs. Bo Wolf in a white guilt virtue signaling contest would be epic. 

2 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

If they think he's the guy, I'd actually prefer they grab him at 15/16....I hate that the Saints are directly in front of us at 18/19. 

Then he can sit behind Hurts for a year and learn.......what not to do as a QB.

7 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

the HUGE HUGE problem with lack of diversity in coaching is this

All the unathetlic kids who are interning or coaches assistants...... are white

all the guys who got beat up, tired, rundown and had to retire early....are white

All the analytical nerds who suck at sports.....are white. 

I feel like you always here of big name "white dudes" who stick around and want to coach and I rarely(if ever) do I hear an African American sticking around. 

Sachi Brown did a great job in Cleveland. I’m interested to see what happens in Minnesota.

With any profession, networking and personal connections rule the day.

Who you know vs what you know

Will be interesting how it all plays out

Thoughts on these extensions? Looks like a lot of money can be freed up. 

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/lists/philadelphia-eagles-potential-contract-extensions-nfl-free-agency-marcus-epps-javon-hargrave/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook

I love how this topic is only focused on nfl head coaches.

Not linemen, owners, baseball coaches, basketball players, etc.   Our society is trash

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Who are they talking about?

Big Dick Nick making his triumphant return. Can’t keep the man down 

10 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I agree that most of the disparity comes from down the pipeline. And if there is bias or racism, it requires legit proof. Serious accusations should always require serious evidence. Racism should be held in the same standard as say pedophilia. If you accuse someone of being a pedophile, typically you need proof. Today, racism accusations can ruin careers/reputations/lives. Saying "I felt they didn't take me seriously" isn't good enough, sorry. Maybe you can say that off the record to the interviewers, but throwing damaging labels around is irresponsible without proof.

But today's society is going all in on "equity" which is one of the most toxic ideologies catching on right now, and this subject could fall under that category in some ways.

Overall, I'm not sure what can be done. You can't force an organization to hire someone they don't want. That's equity. You can make sure equality of opportunity is enforced, and that's what the interview process is for. But no one is owed a job in the NFL. I see a lot of talk about Coach X "deserves" a job. No. He may deserve an interview. Especially in this field where qualifications are entirely subjective. We see super successful coordinators bomb out as head coaches all the time.

So part of the problem with proving discrimination is that it is not often documented that someone is getting fired because they are of a particular race.   Whereas pedophiles tend to actually do things like get digital images of pedophilia or actually abuse a person.  I also think people get far too defensive about what is really just our potential biases in decision making. However, maybe Stephen Ross is in this video: 

I mean I think he's Jewish but maybe NSDAP's are trying to shift their beliefs.  

13 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

the HUGE HUGE problem with lack of diversity in coaching is this

All the unathetlic kids who are interning or coaches assistants...... are white

all the guys who got beat up, tired, rundown and had to retire early....are white

All the analytical nerds who suck at sports.....are white. 

I feel like you always here of big name "white dudes" who stick around and want to coach and I rarely(if ever) do I hear an African American sticking around. 

Maybe Deon, but he doesnt really coach, he's a glorified cheerleader who's really good at recruiting. 

 

 

Glad we’re not generalizing here 

Just now, Bacarty2 said:

Stretching it a bit far arent you?

Comparing a multi billion dollar company hiring a multi million dollar employee to a corner restaurant

"No one should tell someone who they can or cant hire"

 

That's what you wrote and what I responded to.  Nothing in what you said is limited to a multi-billion dollar company.  

 

 

Segregation was still a thing when most of the owners were young adults. It’s a tough situation to be in, and there may need to be a different approach other than the Rooney rule to get it sorted out. 
 

Black players make up more than 50% of the NFL, but they aren’t close to that in the coaching or FO ranks. I don’t think we can ignore the statistics and just say it’s cause white guys are nerds and black guys are more athletic.