Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Again, big picture.......Imo, this is all by design......you control a population by keeping them fighting over emotional topics.....there's an old video (1984 I believe) floating around out there of a KGB defector who talks about population control methods used in the USSR.....then look at what's going on today in the USA.
Yeah, I think this discussion has gone waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy beyond the scope of the Shark Pool.
I can't remember the exact details, but I think that's what may have happened in Detroit a few years ago. Not sure how serious they initially were about hiring him, but he apparently came in and blew them away with his analysis of Stafford and what he'd do to fix his problems.
Thanks for weighing in. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting moving this entire thread to TPF. It's obviously an NFL-related topic. I think it's just always going to be tricky to discuss any topics that touch on race, since a) the discussion can get pretty charged, and b) it can easily crowd out other, more germane, discussions. There's no easy fix, other than keeping an eye on the thread and nudging it back if it gets of course. For my own part, I'm going to try really hard not to get sucked into any broader political debates and keep my focus on the NFL-related aspects of the discussion. I hope others will as well.
Thanks for the title change- when I started this thread I had some issues figuring out how to change the title as it was worded very poorly. It was probably one of the first few threads I started here.
The only ones where I feel confident that it's tokenism are the cases like Gruden. With Caldwell, I just don't know. Maybe it's tokenism, or maybe they're picking his brain as a veteran coach. Or maybe it's both.
Just updating this: Five of the eight head coach openings have been filled so far, and none of them have gone to minorities, so there almost certainly will be fewer. Bienemy, Richard and Flores still in the running for the open positions (I suppose Caldwell is as well, but I don't expect him to be hired).
Hey, some of my best friends are Gregs.Check your privilege.
(For the record, as a fellow Greg, I too am offended by the incorporation of my name as a stand-in for generic whiteness. I thought we had all agreed that Chad drew that assignment.)
Over the years there have been some eyebrow raisers....I can’t remember exactly, if it was koetter to the bucs maybe, where they talked to him first and it was pretty much known that he was the guy, but then they either got fined for not adhering to RR or brought in someone late before they actually hired dirk...so I suppose I see why teams want to get it out of the way too.
Pretty sure the Lions were the only team to ever get fined. But yeah, the Koetter situation was a lot like Gruden, where the whole reason they fired Lovie was so that they could keep Dirk, so it was obvious they were going with him.
The QB stereotyping has definitely gotten better, but I'm old enough to remember when draft experts were saying Lamar Jackson would have to switch to WR.
You make a point, and you're an not wrong in your facts. I've hung out in the political forum since the shutdown and this post would be destroyed there. So while off topic... interesting.
You would think that would be the case. On a certain level, the RR seems to be a bizarre concept. If you had an organization adverse to a minority hiring, what do you gain my forcing a minority interview? It seems like more of a disservice to the minority candidate.
Eh, we'll see how he develops over the next couple years. But Ravens don't make the playoffs with Flacco throwing to Jackson.
I mentioned this earlier, but in a world where every NFL front office is filled with racists, the RR would be useless. In a world where they're all completely racially enlightened, it would be unnecessary. It only makes sense if you believe in the concept of implicit bias. Now, I happen to believe that the science proving the existence of implicit bias is pretty settled, but I get that some people in this thread don't think that, and I've realized that without that baseline agreement, there's not really any point in debating the merits of the RR. It would be like discussing the details of a carbon tax with someone who doesn't believe in man-made climate change. You're talking past each other.
I don't know a ton about Bienemy, other than that I remember him when he played for Colorado (and also that he had one of the all-time Chris Berman nicknames). I will say that I think your post reflects what seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, and in a copycat league like the NFL, there is always a risk that the CW becomes so fixed it creates a bubble, where so many people are chasing the exact same type of coach that they run out of good options and start hiring bad ones. That doesn't mean we're at that point yet, and it certainly doesnt mean Bienemy will be a bad hire, but considering I'm pretty sure at least one team this offseason gave a HC interview to a dude solely because he was once in a room where McVay farted, it's definitely something to keep an eye on.
Yes the DC in Denver can work because Kubiak has no interest in a HC job again. Don't think he can handle the stress. So if their O takes off under him, they don't have to worry about other teams tapping him for a HC job and then Denver starts over with a new OC.
I don’t understand the Caldwell hate. I understand he wasn’t a GREAT coach in Detroit, but he wasn’t so bad that he should never get another shot, was he?
I get what you're trying to say is that intuitively it feels wrong (and you're right) but really it's not strange at all when you realize it comes down to different opportunites--it's systemic. It's a tough conversation to have while keeping it football-related as it's not Shark Pool material.
If the goal is to fight nepotism then it makes no sense to bring race into the equation. The only goal is to appear as though they’re taking seriously the question why are there so few black coaches? But they’re not willing or able to take that question seriously - it’s too risky - so we have this counterproductive mess of a rule instead.
Actually, it's entirely logical to assume discrimination is the cause of both ratios, because that's the society we live in. There's a ton of science on that. The idea that the cause might not be discrimination would be an extraordinary claim.
Discrimination is the reason there are so few white cornerbacks? Because that’s the society we live in and there’s science on that? Can you point me to it?
You can start with "Perceptions of athletic superiority: A view from the other side", L.Harrison Jr. et al (2007) if you're actually interested in the question.
I read the abstract and it doesn’t sound particularly interesting or promising to me. I’m interested in having a conversation if you are, but won’t be reading that.
