Incentivize firing sitting coaches/GMs? I don't see this passing. I can't see owners voluntarily limiting their options.
If you're tanking, might as well hire a minority coach for the better draft pick and then fire him.
There's already a lack of stability in many places (i.e, here.) I don't see this as doing anything positive for the product on the field.
Teams should be hiring the best candidates, period. The resulting success should be incentive enough.
edit: the full article does address longevity concerns. I still think incentivizing certain candidates over others based on skin color is a flawed idea.
How many minorities in the ranks have the abilities to be a HC and the interest?
Until those questions are answered, there can be no true accepted answer of how many there should be.
They can try to force the HC rule all they want, but what they should focus on is bring up the other coaching positions with minorities and providing them the resources to learn the next position up.
Like others have said, the Haslams have done a very good job in hiring minorities. I give them credit for that.
I don't know about the logistics of this proposed rule, but I do know that it is a crime that more blacks are not in positions of authority. I believe that 75 percent of the players are minorities. There are very few GMs and HCs that are minorities. The numbers do not match-up.
There was a time when the belief was that blacks were not smart enough or good enough leaders to play QB. Look at the NFL today. Mahomes, Wilson, Watson, Lamar, Dak. These guys were right at the top of QB rankings almost all year and all of their teams were either very successful or at least decent [in Dak's case.] There were articles out there about "The Year of the Black Quarterback."
I think it is time to put more minorities in positions of power. It's infuriating that there is still this notion that blacks are not smart enough or don't posses the proper leadership skills.
Look at the Browns. We had Redneck Freddie and he failed miserably. Pittsburgh lost Bell, Brown, and Big Ben. They were playing w/stiffs at QB, yet they still managed to have a better record than us. People slam Tomlin all the time, but the dude can coach.
The NFL should be a meritocracy, IMO. This kind of proposal implies that minorities can't achieve higher management positions on their own, which is manifestly untrue. Look no further than our own team - Ray Farmer, Sashi Brown, Hue Jackson, Andrew Berry, or the young man they hired today.
I love that they are trying to think of ways to promote hiring minorities... but hate this idea... this would be taken advantage of... I could see teams firing and hiring just to get better draft picks
Like others have said, the Haslams have done a very good job in hiring minorities. I give them credit for that.
I don't know about the logistics of this proposed rule, but I do know that it is a crime that more blacks are not in positions of authority. I believe that 75 percent of the players are minorities. There are very few GMs and HCs that are minorities. The numbers do not match-up.
There was a time when the belief was that blacks were not smart enough or good enough leaders to play QB. Look at the NFL today. Mahomes, Wilson, Watson, Lamar, Dak. These guys were right at the top of QB rankings almost all year and all of their teams were either very successful or at least decent [in Dak's case.] There were articles out there about "The Year of the Black Quarterback."
I think it is time to put more minorities in positions of power. It's infuriating that there is still this notion that blacks are not smart enough or don't posses the proper leadership skills.
Look at the Browns. We had Redneck Freddie and he failed miserably. Pittsburgh lost Bell, Brown, and Big Ben. They were playing w/stiffs at QB, yet they still managed to have a better record than us. People slam Tomlin all the time, but the dude can coach.
Give minorities more opportunities.
I don't understand what opportunities are being denied.
How would hiring a man who happens to be African American be the same as hiring a man because he is African American.
It's not, the 2nd one is favoritism, which is racism. (The first one is equal opportunity) Discriminate against someone who happens to be born with white skin? What's wrong with equal opportunity? Ain't heard too many cases of suits filed because folks denied coaching jobs because minority, (So if it were going on, we'd hear about it, believe me, in 21st century it would lead the news cycles.)
Just as wrong to favor someone with white skin beacause of their skin color as the other way around. So it would be the definition of racist to give someone a reward for hiring someone because of the color of their skin, So, obviously a bad idea.
There is no notion you are infuriaeted with, as you describe, it just doesn't exist. Why don't the numbers match up, why don't more minorities go into coaching, continue on in coaching, I don't think they are opportunity denied,. (No reason to name call Freddie, and Nobody slams Tomlin, it just doesn't happen, the only time I ever mentioned Tomlin is to show he got better after his first two years, and The Browns',? Well the Browns don't learn nothing, anything about sticking with a plan, or anyone getting any better, I might as well go root--)
I thought the NFL was to put on football games, This thing is bigger than the NFL. An idea this messed up is an attack on America, an intent to divide.
Apparantly the NFL can't just be for football games, it's got to be a tool to continue division; which I find sad.
Louis Riddick and Sage Steele review the NFL's proposal to reward teams with higher draft picks for hiring minority head coaches and general managers. Riddick says the proposal suggest that it's no longer about the applicants competency and finds the proposal insulting; however, addressing his interview with the New York Giants and feeling as though he was not discriminated against. Riddick also suggest what he believes would be a far more effective way to create more diversity within those roles.
If passed, make this retroactive for the Browns. This is one area the Haslams have shined.
Bad idea IMO.
I could see giving those teams maybe a 8th round pick, or even a 9th before teams could start signing UDFA players.
I agree, Jimmy Haslam has been more inclusive a owner then most, yet many still view him as some bad redneck from Tennessee.
I say bad redneck because I am a redneck. I don't discriminate against people of color, women, people from other countries. I just discriminate against crappy people. They come in both sexes, different colors, shapes, and sizes.
Just because I like to sit at the square, tell jokes, hunt, fish, chug a few longnecks while listen to country music at some honkey tonk doesn't make me a bad person. Oh...I have a 24 year old truck I like to drive when just kicking around. It doesn't look all that great, but I don't care.
So let's say I'm an unscrupulous owner, and my aging team is past its window of opportunity. I hire a black hc and gm, and have them tank for two years to replenish the team through draft picks and trades. As the owner, I steer the picks and trades so I have a wealth of draft picks on year 3. I then fire my black gm and hc, as I hired them for color not talent, and hire the gm and coach I actually want. I also get a bonus again if they happen to not be white.
Sound like a great opportunity for rebuilds to me.
So let's say I'm an unscrupulous owner, and my aging team is past its window of opportunity. I hire a black hc and gm, and have them tank for two years to replenish the team through draft picks and trades. As the owner, I steer the picks and trades so I have a wealth of draft picks on year 3. I then fire my black gm and hc, as I hired them for color not talent, and hire the gm and coach I actually want. I also get a bonus again if they happen to not be white.
Sound like a great opportunity for rebuilds to me.
Should be, but isn't. Every coaching staff is littered with buddies and family members.
Originally Posted By: Dave
This kind of proposal implies that minorities can't achieve higher management positions on their own, which is manifestly untrue. Look no further than our own team - Ray Farmer, Sashi Brown, Hue Jackson, Andrew Berry, or the young man they hired today.
They can achieve higher management positions on their own but they are not represented well enough. The guys we have hired have been the exception, not the rule.
They can achieve higher management positions on their own but they are not represented well enough.
Can we define what that means? Based on the percentage of blacks/minorities in relation to our overall population? And what positions are considered "higher management" besides GM and HC? Do we really want to go down this road? Are we going to need to concern ourselves with how many white RB, WR, and CB there are in the league? How many Asian D-Linemen? Are Native Americans represented proportionately among players, coaches, or management?
So let's say I'm an unscrupulous owner, and my aging team is past its window of opportunity. I hire a black hc and gm, and have them tank for two years to replenish the team through draft picks and trades. As the owner, I steer the picks and trades so I have a wealth of draft picks on year 3. I then fire my black gm and hc, as I hired them for color not talent, and hire the gm and coach I actually want. I also get a bonus again if they happen to not be white.
Sound like a great opportunity for rebuilds to me.
So let's say I'm an unscrupulous owner, and my aging team is past its window of opportunity. I hire a black hc and gm, and have them tank for two years to replenish the team through draft picks and trades. As the owner, I steer the picks and trades so I have a wealth of draft picks on year 3. I then fire my black gm and hc, as I hired them for color not talent, and hire the gm and coach I actually want. I also get a bonus again if they happen to not be white.
Sound like a great opportunity for rebuilds to me.
So let's say I'm an unscrupulous owner, and my aging team is past its window of opportunity. I hire a black hc and gm, and have them tank for two years to replenish the team through draft picks and trades. As the owner, I steer the picks and trades so I have a wealth of draft picks on year 3. I then fire my black gm and hc, as I hired them for color not talent, and hire the gm and coach I actually want. I also get a bonus again if they happen to not be white.
Sound like a great opportunity for rebuilds to me.
This is almost exactly what we did!
Without any bonuses, though.
It’s also debatable whether Haslam hired who he wanted after the black guys were fired.
I will say, though... I'm really glad they're taking a hard look at the Rooney Rule. To that end, I applaud them. As it is right now, I think the Rooney Rule probably does more harm than good. I don't really feel like re-hashing that argument, but it boils down to the "token interview" being more demeaning than it actually benefits coaching candidates.
I think their thought process was flawed, which then led them to the wrong answer. I think they tried to address the minority hiring situation with the most coveted currency available (draft capital). I applaud the intent, but the end result is very wrong.
While I acknowledge that there's definitely some 'good 'ol boys club' going on, I don't think it's as pervasive as some think. I think the NFL is EXTREMELY results/performance oriented. GMs and other folks doing the hiring are well aware that any of the hires they're making could very easily result in them being out of a job... and that's why I think hires based on familiarity happen. I do believe that if there's a candidate with a resume that's clearly stronger, that that guy would get the offer. So for me, it's a matter of getting more minorities into the entry-level coaching gigs, identifying which of those have potential, and steering extra resources and attention to the ones that excel with the opportunities given.
Instead of the process being, "find a black guy for a token interview so we can check the Rooney Rule box", I would love to see "this guy wouldn't have been on our radar before, but with the Rooney Program he's clearly a strong candidate for consideration".
*** You are ignoring this user *** Toggle the display of this post
~~~~~~~~~~ FOREVER~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't ever reply to me. Thankfully, it will never be seen by me.
Speaking of afraid.... You post snarky little gifs as you're putting people on ignore. People have done far less and earned the title of snowflake.
As for your original Stephen A Smith-level hot take, San Fran was in the top 1/2 (maybe top 1/3) in terms of attendance for 2017-2018 season. So while common sense says your temper tantrum about the PC crowd has no relevance to the topic (tweaking the Rooney Rule), simple facts show that it's also totally wrong.
I’m not a huge fan of this particular incentive, but I dont know all of the particulars. It seems to me that franchises should want to hire the best individuals, but clearly that isn’t the case.
The Rooney rule is counter intuitive. If there's a person who is racist inside the team organization get rid of them. Otherwise just hire the best person for the job whatever color or gender they may be. I don't care if they give the offensive coordinator position to a kid as long as that person produces good results!
I realize I should stick to the pure football area, but I really do feel an obligation to try to post some thought provoking perspective when browns fans start talking racial equality...
My father lost his dad at 6. Grew up poor as a dog in Fremont Ohio. Worked in a mill cutting steel pipes at 16 to support his mom and little brother. Worked his ass off, becoming a naval officer during Vietnam, and then a college professor. He's retired now, wealthy, honest, hard working, amazing guy.
But despite his humble start, he was still way ahead of 99% of blacks just by being born white. He didn't have to contend with systematic racism, childhood friends pushing him into a gang, cops kneeling on his neck, or all the other garbage blacks deal with to this day.
These rules that encourage minority hires, while unfathomable to many of you, are designed to help offset the massive disparity in how things are in this world between a white person and a minority. You say things like "just hire the best candidate" as if the playing field were level, but it isn't.
Two guys race, and we hire the winner. But one guy has had his shoes taken away, and been punched in the gut. So the other guy will win. But is the winner really the fastest runner?
Anyway, think about it, or troll some racist garbage, or ignore it. Whatever floats your boats. I just want to put this perspective out there for consideration, because I see so much naivite in the "just hire the best guy" narritive.
I get that there are problems w/trying to implement rules when it comes to hiring minorities in the NFL, but something needs to be done.
Minorities account for 70+ percent of the players in the NFL. Meanwhile, I think there are only four minority head coaches. Tomlin, Flores, Lynn, and Rivera. What's that? 12.5 percent. These percentages seem out of whack. Thus, when a group of individuals refuse to practice equal and fair hiring policies, others must step-in and help protect the rights of those being unfairly treated.
I think many here agree with you in principal. I know that I do. It makes for a very difficult situation. In this case I think the rule being proposed can be manipulated to help the teams while it may do little or nothing to actually help in establish long term goals for minority hiring.
<---cfrs
