Raiders may be interviewing Pep (Merge)

[DougDew]

Regarding Pep's qualifications for the Raiders job, it seems that you don't think he's a legitimate candidate, and so anything contrary is going to be dismissed by you. There have been reports that Pep would be a candidate for head jobs for months now. Suggesting that all those of those reports are meaningless seems unnecessarily stubborn.

 

And I say that because you've concocted this theory in which Pep's candidacy isn't serious. I never said that you are propping him up as just a Rooney candidate, but it's really starting to seem that way. If he were just a Rooney candidate, the Raiders wouldn't be asking for him and Bowles to interview. Neither of them can interview this week, so leaking names does nothing for the Raiders, nor does it meet the Rooney requirement. All the Raiders have to do is interview a bunch of people, however many they want, but at least one of them has to be a minority. Raiders fans don't care what race the coach is. "Just win, baby."

 

This entire angle is specious, IMO. The simplest explanation is the best one. 

 

I'm also not calling you racist, but you probably already know that I disagree with your viewpoint on this entire topic, so I'm not going there. I'd rather talk about football.

 

I think the input an OC has on the starting offensive line varies by team and situation. I don't know how the Colts made those decisions, and I think it's impossible to determine without serious insider access.

Yes, I know that you are not calling or implying that I am being racist.

 

The simple way to look at is that if AC's don't get promoted to HCs, its because they are not good enough.  The NFL chose to make it more complicated than that.   Intellectual honesty requires us to consider all of the moving parts.  Can't just bury our heads in the sand to the few that make us uncomfortable.  

 

I haven't concluded anything about Pep's qualifications.  But simply listening to media reports that Pep is "well thought of" is not of the same caliber of data than is watching for myself how the Lions constantly erupted, and that how "Blinky" remaining calm during a 2-14 season made him a perfect candidate to take over for the dope they had there. 

 

I see for myself no basis by which Pep would be highly thought of by a team seeking a HC or be considered more seriously than other coordinators.  If they have a short list and he is on it, great.  But since there is a Rooney rule, I can't leap to the assumption that he is being interviewed because they have him high on the list.  That's the complication that I can't ignore.

[Narcosys]

Yes, good for him.

Yes, good for us.

[Superman]

Yes, I know that you are not calling or implying that I am being racist.

 

The simple way to look at is that if AC's don't get promoted to HCs, its because they are not good enough.  The NFL chose to make it more complicated than that.   Intellectual honesty requires us to consider all of the moving parts.  Can't just bury our heads in the sand to the few that make us uncomfortable.  

 

I haven't concluded anything about Pep's qualifications.  But simply listening to media reports that Pep is "well thought of" is not of the same caliber of data than is watching for myself how the Lions constantly erupted, and that how "Blinky" remaining calm during a 2-14 season made him a perfect candidate to take over for the dope they had there. 

 

I see for myself no basis by which Pep would be highly thought of by a team seeking a HC or be considered more seriously than other coordinators.  If they have a short list and he is on it, great.  But since there is a Rooney rule, I can't leap to the assumption that he is being interviewed because they have him high on the list.  That's the complication that I can't ignore.

 

That Pep is on the Raiders list doesn't make him a more serious candidate than anyone else. It only makes him a candidate. What it shouldn't do is automatically make him a less serious candidate by people who assume he's only an affirmative action case.

 

I brought up the Caldwell situation because it's similar. Reports surface that Caldwell would be interviewed, and immediately he was pegged as a Rooney rule interview. Same thing when he interviewed with Washington. Turns out he was a legitimate candidate, despite the insistence of some that he wouldn't/couldn't be. (As an aside, the situations are obviously not equal, but I think Caldwell did a far better job in Detroit this season than Gruden did in Washington.)

 

Just a word on the Rooney rule, your statement that if minorities aren't being hired then they must not be good enough is rather myopic. In a perfect world, the best and most qualified candidate would get the job every time. That's simply not the kind of world we live in. Affirmative action isn't a great solution, but it only exists because there was a problem in the first place. 

[DougDew]

That Pep is on the Raiders list doesn't make him a more serious candidate than anyone else. It only makes him a candidate. What it shouldn't do is automatically make him a less serious candidate by people who assume he's only an affirmative action case.

 

I brought up the Caldwell situation because it's similar. Reports surface that Caldwell would be interviewed, and immediately he was pegged as a Rooney rule interview. Same thing when he interviewed with Washington. Turns out he was a legitimate candidate, despite the insistence of some that he wouldn't/couldn't be. (As an aside, the situations are obviously not equal, but I think Caldwell did a far better job in Detroit this season than Gruden did in Washington.)

 

Just a word on the Rooney rule, your statement that if minorities aren't being hired then they must not be good enough is rather myopic. In a perfect world, the best and most qualified candidate would get the job every time. That's simply not the kind of world we live in. Affirmative action isn't a great solution, but it only exists because there was a problem in the first place. 

I don't think I said what you report me to be saying.

 

I guess to put it simply, as long as there is a rule that requires minority candidates to be interviewed, I can't make the blind assumption that they are being interviewed because the team feels like they are (highly) qualified.   That's what I would assume if there wasn't such a rule.   And perhaps others would blindly assume discrimination was occurring if no minorities interviewed, whereas I would not given the Shell, Rhodes, Dungy hiring prior to the policy.

 

Also, I think we are speaking to different audiences throughout our posts, and I'm tired of solving all of the NFL's social problems.    See you later on another thread.

[antipatriot]

I think all of this garbage only exists because it is continually perpetuated by the media and obviously forums like this.  Any intelligent person in this day doesn't care about color and the Rooney rule is just another thing that perpetuates this crap.  The best candidate will get the job when money is involved and lets be honest that is all that matters in the NFL, you win your team makes money so stop being naive and just deal with it people.

 

As for Pep I could care less one way or the other if he leaves or stays as long as Pagano is the HC at some point we will hear the garbage we want to be a power running team.  We have one of the best QBs  in the league and a talented receiving core USE IT it has worked for us.  When we get a line then we can run the ball, until then lets just pray that our QB survives because that poor kid has taken a beating.  We get an OL and Pep or a multitude of good OC's can put up points with this team.  Then of course the D needs to be addressed.

 

We are like all teams we have issues they need to be taken care of and contrary to a different post we are the beneficiary of a bad division right now but at least that gives us time.

 

Let the slamming of this post begin.

 

GO COLTS

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Yes, good for us.

I agree.

[NewColtsFan]

Ever hear him talk?  Compare it to when you hear Belichek talk.  There are many college coaches with higher football IQ's than Pagano.  Saban is smarter.  As is Meyer.  As is Malzahn.  As are many others.  In Pagano's 3 years as coach, have you ever heard him demonstrate any kind of technical, x's and o's knowledge?  I sure haven't.

 

Pagano's football accumen sounds like it's at the same level as your everyday, run of the mill high school coach.  Great cheerleader and clapper though, as i've said before.

 

OK.....   That's what I thought.

 

You're guessing.    You don't know,  but this is your guess.

 

Fine.

[NewColtsFan]

Not being qualified would be a reason to not get hired.  

 

Tom Flores, Art Shell, Tony Dungy, Ray Rhodes, Dennis Green, and Herm Edwards were all HC before the rule.  Its not that blacks weren't being hired, its the fact that the numbers didn't add up to what some thought they needed to add up to, at least that was the argument for the rule at the time.  There was never a list of qualified black candidates that were passed over and supported by each resume, it was just, a drive-by assumption of racism made because of numbers.

 

Anyway, the rule is what it is and its fine. 

 

 Its my opinion that Pep's race and other things, like having success in the bay area, has something to do with his interview as much as his resume.  The fans would have a certain comfort with Pep and Bowles for that matter if they followed the Cardinals at all.

 

Who can generate buzz and enthusiasm among the fans has something to do with who gets hired. 

 

The rule was put into place because not only were minorities not being hired (your list is incredibly small given it's over the history of the NFL)  but in most cases,  minorities weren't even being interviewed!!  

 

HELLO?!?

 

You can't get the job if you're not even being interviewed for the job.

 

It's not that hard to figure out.    Why you need to turn it into something more is beyond me.

 

And even more than not getting HC jobs,  many minorities are not getting jobs as OC's or DC's.     That,  along with guys who were already HC's but fired, or who move on,   is the pool of people who get hired to be HC's.    The system is pretty much stacked against non-whites. 

 

Giving people a simple basic opportunity to be interviewed hardly smacks of racism.   It smacks of equal access,   equal opportunity,  leveling of the playing field....     it all depends on where you stand.

 

Your explanation of why and how Jim Caldwell was a good candidate was pretty lame.   As if that were the only good quality he had.      

 

I feared this conversation we're having.    You and I are on opposite sides of the planet from each other on this issue.    I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to see my side of things.    But I think the long view history has shown and will continue to show that my view is far more correct than yours and will continue to be.

 

Defending what was the status quo of how the NFL was conducting its business on hiring minorities candidates is simply a losing position,  a losing argument.     It's a dark, bad chapter for the league.    Defending it doesn't make it any better.

[mvbighead]

Can you please let me know how this front office has gotten more level headed? Didn't they just fire their coach mid-way through the season?  The only possible cornerstone I see is Mack, Carr while decent for a rookie needs alot of work to become a cornerstone of the franchise.  I don't mean to blast you but I live in SoCal and hear all about it from Raiders fans/radio, etc.... and they aren't as optimistic as you lol

 

I agree, getting any of the 32 head coaching jobs is a dream come true to some, but stop polishing a turd.  If Pep or Bowles or whoever get the job, they will be cutting their teeth with a angry looking Reggie McKenzie and a befuddled looking Mark Davis standing over them questioning every move.

 

 

 

Firing a coach midway through the season means one is not level headed?  Allen wasn't doing anything to show improvement.  If that's the case, move on and try something else.  And when you have a former head coach as a coordinator, why not give him the keys for a short while just to see what you have.

 

As for Carr, plenty are optimistic about him.  Any rookie usually needs lots of work. Manning wasn't great for his first season or two.  The thing is, Carr seems to have something that many of their previous QBs didn't.  That 'it' factor that drives them to be better.  He may not pan out over the next few years, but he has the physical tools and seemingly the drive to improve. That's a heckuvalot more than the Browns have in Manziel.

 

As for a staff questioning their every move, that's hogwash.  Nearly every coach gets his first season as a near pass so long as some level of improvement is seen. Only truly horrible coaches get canned immediately for not being able to show a modicum of improvement.  People joke about that franchise all the time, but having watched many of their games, they're often close in division games, which means they're a few steps away from putting up enough W's to make the playoffs.  It just takes steady improvement for that to happen, and a good coach CAN make that difference.

[mvbighead]

This reeks of a Rooney rule interview

Why is it every time a black coordinator gets interviewed, someone has to suggest this crap?  The Colts had the leading offense in the league for quite some time into the season.  Why not consider that coordinator for a head coach position, black or white or brown or yellow?

[mvbighead]

And the board's IQ level drops

 

What exactly is your point with this comment?

[Colts_Fan12]

If he goes I sure wont worry about luck Idc if it is a new offense he is a smart guy and will thrive in it too

[colts_100nascar17fan]

Good hope he goes, let chud take over n bring in Rex ryan,but he will land in Atlanta I bet.

[DougDew]

The rule was put into place because not only were minorities not being hired (your list is incredibly small given it's over the history of the NFL)  but in most cases,  minorities weren't even being interviewed!!  

 

HELLO?!?

 

You can't get the job if you're not even being interviewed for the job.

 

It's not that hard to figure out.    Why you need to turn it into something more is beyond me.

 

And even more than not getting HC jobs,  many minorities are not getting jobs as OC's or DC's.     That,  along with guys who were already HC's but fired, or who move on,   is the pool of people who get hired to be HC's.    The system is pretty much stacked against non-whites. 

 

Giving people a simple basic opportunity to be interviewed hardly smacks of racism.   It smacks of equal access,   equal opportunity,  leveling of the playing field....     it all depends on where you stand.

 

Your explanation of why and how Jim Caldwell was a good candidate was pretty lame.   As if that were the only good quality he had.      

 

I feared this conversation we're having.    You and I are on opposite sides of the planet from each other on this issue.    I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to see my side of things.    But I think the long view history has shown and will continue to show that my view is far more correct than yours and will continue to be.

 

Defending what was the status quo of how the NFL was conducting its business on hiring minorities candidates is simply a losing position,  a losing argument.     It's a dark, bad chapter for the league.    Defending it doesn't make it any better.

Where do people get the training to see things like you do and the confidence to put it into writing?

So, you know that there were a lot of minority candidates in the past that were qualified, but were being denied interviews because they were assumed to not be qualified because they were minorities? Where is the list of candidates that you or others have documented that show each candidates resume and the circumstances that showed he was overlooked? Did wherever you learn this actually supply you with that kind of data before you chose to believe it? Or did you choose to believe it because everyone else does and its easy?

You are using the concept that if that the number of HCs doesn't represent some statistically valid percentage of some arbitrary universe of population, there is racism involved. Measuring anything that way doesn't prove a thing, let alone racism. That process is a tactic used to promote a position, not a legitimate indicator of wrongdoing.

I make no conclusions about what the NFL's past practices were, so I can't possibly be defending them. I only know what the rule says today, and the flawed logic involved in the conversation at the time that the rule was implemented. Don't twist this into the idea that if I don't blindly spread popular assumptions, that I'm supporting the opposite.

[GoColts8818]

Walks in and sees where this thread has gone and...

In all seriousness when the rule was made in 2003 the only African American Coaches in the league were Tony Dungy and Herm Edwards and there had only been five other African American Head Coaches in league history for a total of seven with only Tony Dungy getting a second chance with a different team. Since the rule was made there have been 13 not counting Green and Edward's second tenures as a Head Coach in the NFL or Dungy finishing his time with the Colts. I would say this supports the idea that qualified coaches were getting passed over and this rule has helped that.

[peytonmanning18]

Why is it every time a black coordinator gets interviewed, someone has to suggest this crap? The Colts had the leading offense in the league for quite some time into the season. Why not consider that coordinator for a head coach position, black or white or brown or yellow?

There's plenty of black assistant coaches in the NFL that would make good head coaches, I just don't believe Pep Hamilton is one of them

[NewColtsFan]

Where do people get the training to see things like you do and the confidence to put it into writing?

So, you know that there were a lot of minority candidates in the past that were qualified, but were being denied interviews because they were assumed to not be qualified because they were minorities? Where is the list of candidates that you or others have documented that show each candidates resume and the circumstances that showed he was overlooked? Did wherever you learn this actually supply you with that kind of data before you chose to believe it? Or did you choose to believe it because everyone else does and its easy?

You are using the concept that if that the number of HCs doesn't represent some statistically valid percentage of some arbitrary universe of population, there is racism involved. Measuring anything that way doesn't prove a thing, let alone racism. That process is a tactic used to promote a position, not a legitimate indicator of wrongdoing.

I make no conclusions about what the NFL's past practices were, so I can't possibly be defending them. I only know what the rule says today, and the flawed logic involved in the conversation at the time that the rule was implemented. Don't twist this into the idea that if I don't blindly spread popular assumptions, that I'm supporting the opposite.

 

I think you're opening line in this post is simply.....   fantastic.   I'm jealous I didn't think of it first.   Because, quite frankly,  that's exactly what I think of your views here....   so, consider it a back-handed compliment.   imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

But as to all the rest.....   you've created a world where only the white assistants can get promoted to coordinators and then eventually to head coaches.    And you've created a defense for that by saying there can be no expectation that minorities are just as qualified.

 

I don't know what happened in your life that gives you such a warped perspective?

 

Just the Law of Large Numbers alone would tell you that mathematically speaking a larger percentage of minorities would get more opportunities.

 

And yet,  the Rooney Rule,  which you decry,  doesn't mandate that minorities actually get the job.   Only that they get interviewed.      That's it.    Just interviewed.     And yet it bothers you enough to raise a stink about it here.

 

Minorities are being given little more than crumbs and yet it offends you.

 

You're on top of the mountain and not only do you feel like you're entitled to stay there,  but you resent any opportunities for anyone else other than White Men.

 

You're ability to defend the indefensible is breathtaking to me.    And certainly not in a good way.

 

I think you're on the wrong side of history.   And I think years from now, you'll still be on the wrong side of history.

 

And I don't know how you rationalize that,  and yet,  you do.......

[DougDew]

I think you're opening line in this post is simply.....   fantastic.   I'm jealous I didn't think of it first.   Because, quite frankly,  that's exactly what I think of your views here....   so, consider it a back-handed compliment.   imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

But as to all the rest.....   you've created a world where only the white assistants can get promoted to coordinators and then eventually to head coaches.    And you've created a defense for that by saying there can be no expectation that minorities are just as qualified.

 

I don't know what happened in your life that gives you such a warped perspective?

 

Just the Law of Large Numbers alone would tell you that mathematically speaking a larger percentage of minorities would get more opportunities.

 

And yet,  the Rooney Rule,  which you decry,  doesn't mandate that minorities actually get the job.   Only that they get interviewed.      That's it.    Just interviewed.     And yet it bothers you enough to raise a stink about it here.

 

Minorities are being given little more than crumbs and yet it offends you.

 

You're on top of the mountain and not only do you feel like you're entitled to stay there,  but you resent any opportunities for anyone else other than White Men.

 

You're ability to defend the indefensible is breathtaking to me.    And certainly not in a good way.

 

I think you're on the wrong side of history.   And I think years from now, you'll still be on the wrong side of history.

 

And I don't know how you rationalize that,  and yet,  you do.......

Anybody of any color can be qualified and be a good coach. Anybody of any color may not be qualified and may not be a good coach. I don't create that world. Its what exists. Who knows how many of what color and not the other color are qualified right now? Sociologists do by counting heads and applying percentages?

You are implying that the NFL's practice was to assume that people of color were not inherently qualified to become HC, just like some may have thought about QBs, so they didn't bother to offer them opportunities, thereby inadvertently passing over the person that could help them the most.

On what planet does that way of thinking prevail by the majority? Were talking about 2003, when the policy was created.

Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, Dennis Green and maybe another were HCs before the policy was even thought about. The policy was born out of someone's idea of how to measure how many are qualified by applying some percentage of some arbitrary denominator, then telling the NFL the number they have is too low. What expert knows more about who is qualified to be a HC than the people who hire HCs? I envision a colorblind world and believe that it inherently exists in the heads of most people. If that scares you because you think that whatever percentage of what group would get all out of whack compared to whatever percentage you think it should be, that's your problem.

[Derakynn]

Walks in and sees where this thread has gone and...

In all seriousness when the rule was made in 2003 the only African American Coaches in the league were Tony Dungy and Herm Edwards and there had only been five other African American Head Coaches in league history for a total of seven with only Tony Dungy getting a second chance with a different team. Since the rule was made there have been 13 not counting Green and Edward's second tenures as a Head Coach in the NFL or Dungy finishing his time with the Colts. I would say this supports the idea that qualified coaches were getting passed over and this rule has helped that.

To be fair, civil rights has made great strides even in the past 10 years. Back in the 60s even up to the 80s racism was rampant. A much different time now. Point being I don't think it has all been the rule but rather changes in society.

[RockThatBlue]

Sometimes I read posts that just make me shake me head.

You people bashing pep are crazy. Our offense was ranked number one pretty much the whole year. Yeah that pep really sucks!

[GoColts8818]

To be fair, civil rights has made great strides even in the past 10 years. Back in the 60s even up to the 80s racism was rampant. A much different time now. Point being I don't think it has all been the rule but rather changes in society.

i think the rule has helped. I don't think it's just a coincidence that the number of Minority coaches has almost doubled from the total amount in league history from the time the rule was put in place. It might not be the only factor but I think it's a factor none the less.

[GoColts8818]

Sometimes I read posts that just make me shake me head.

You people bashing pep are crazy. Our offense was ranked number one pretty much the whole year. Yeah that pep really sucks!

no you see that's Luck over coming him expect when the players make a mistake then it's bad coaching.

[RockThatBlue]

no you see that's Luck over coming him expect when the players make a mistake then it's bad coaching.

I guess people think its pep out there fumbling and turning the ball over. There are teams that would kill to have an offense as good as ours, yet people want pep gone. Just dumb IMO

[GoColts8818]

I guess people think its pep out there fumbling and turning the ball over. There are teams that would kill to have an offense as good as ours, yet people want pep gone. Just dumb IMO

like I be said before I think pep has done a good job. Has he made mistskes sure but show me a coach who hasn't. We could be far worse off.

[RockThatBlue]

like I be said before I think pep has done a good job. Has he made mistskes sure but show me a coach who hasn't. We could be far worse off.

Yep I agree. Only problem I have with pep is that I feel like we never try getting a run game going or we go away from it too fast. But that could be because he doesn't have a ton of faith in our running game. Imagine how even better this offense would be with a consistent run game.

[NewColtsFan]

Anybody of any color can be qualified and be a good coach. Anybody of any color may not be qualified and may not be a good coach. I don't create that world. Its what exists. Who knows how many of what color and not the other color are qualified right now? Sociologists do by counting heads and applying percentages?

You are implying that the NFL's practice was to assume that people of color were not inherently qualified to become HC, just like some may have thought about QBs, so they didn't bother to offer them opportunities, thereby inadvertently passing over the person that could help them the most.

On what planet does that way of thinking prevail by the majority? Were talking about 2003, when the policy was created.

Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, Dennis Green and maybe another were HCs before the policy was even thought about. The policy was born out of someone's idea of how to measure how many are qualified by applying some percentage of some arbitrary denominator, then telling the NFL the number they have is too low. What expert knows more about who is qualified to be a HC than the people who hire HCs? I envision a colorblind world and believe that it inherently exists in the heads of most people. If that scares you because you think that whatever percentage of what group would get all out of whack compared to whatever percentage you think it should be, that's your problem.

 

I'm sorry,  but you're not envisioning a colorblind world at all.

 

There were few minority HC.   And not that many minority OC's or DC's.    How can you become a head coach if you can't a job interview?      How can you qualify for an interview if you can't even become a coordinator?     Where was the color blind world there?     It didn't exist.     The NFL needed and still needs a huge kick in the rear.

 

The Rooney Rule does NOT guarantee a single job.    It doesn't even guarantee interviews for all minorities.   It only requires a team to interview a single minority candidate in the process of selecting their next head coach.

 

And even THAT is too much for you.    Minority candidates are barely being offered a professional courtesy and you're bothered by it.     This is completely mystifying to me.     Why anyone would be bothered by this is beyond any rational thinking.

 

It's simply an attempt to improve access to higher and better jobs.    Hard to see anything worth complaining about.    Does it deprive a single candidate of an opportunity to interview?    No.

 

It deprives no one of anything.    It only offers more access and yet,  that's too much for you.

 

I don't know how you continue to argue against it,  but you do....   why you do is a complete mystery to me....

[mvbighead]

There's plenty of black assistant coaches in the NFL that would make good head coaches, I just don't believe Pep Hamilton is one of them

 

I don't believe any coordinator with a top 10 QB is usually worthy of such interviews, but when people go looking at Adam Gase, why exactly is that?

 

To me, guys like Peyton and Brady have helped so many coordinators get into coaching positions, but a good part of the success of those offenses is the guy throwing the ball.  Suffice it say, when a black coordinator gets interviewed, it ain't a Rooney rule thing necessarily.  It could be as simple as looking for the next up and comer, and who better than a guy calling the plays for a highly ranked offense.

[peytonmanning18]

I don't believe any coordinator with a top 10 QB is usually worthy of such interviews, but when people go looking at Adam Gase, why exactly is that?

To me, guys like Peyton and Brady have helped so many coordinators get into coaching positions, but a good part of the success of those offenses is the guy throwing the ball. Suffice it say, when a black coordinator gets interviewed, it ain't a Rooney rule thing necessarily. It could be as simple as looking for the next up and comer, and who better than a guy calling the plays for a highly ranked offense.

When we interviewed Jerry Gray back in 2012, it was solely to comply with the Rooney rule which is a shame. Not because the Colts did anything wrong but the fact that teams have to interview minorities to comply with the rule and waste everyone's time when they know who they want. We were always going to hire Pagano.

[GoColts8818]

When we interviewed Jerry Gray back in 2012, it was solely to comply with the Rooney rule which is a shame. Not because the Colts did anything wrong but the fact that teams have to interview minorities to comply with the rule and waste everyone's time when they know who they want. We were always going to hire Pagano.

Really? explain all the other interviews then?

[Narcosys]

The rule was put into place because not only were minorities not being hired (your list is incredibly small given it's over the history of the NFL) but in most cases, minorities weren't even being interviewed!!

HELLO?!?

You can't get the job if you're not even being interviewed for the job.

It's not that hard to figure out. Why you need to turn it into something more is beyond me.

And even more than not getting HC jobs, many minorities are not getting jobs as OC's or DC's. That, along with guys who were already HC's but fired, or who move on, is the pool of people who get hired to be HC's. The system is pretty much stacked against non-whites.

Giving people a simple basic opportunity to be interviewed hardly smacks of racism. It smacks of equal access, equal opportunity, leveling of the playing field.... it all depends on where you stand.

Your explanation of why and how Jim Caldwell was a good candidate was pretty lame. As if that were the only good quality he had.

I feared this conversation we're having. You and I are on opposite sides of the planet from each other on this issue. I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to see my side of things. But I think the long view history has shown and will continue to show that my view is far more correct than yours and will continue to be.

Defending what was the status quo of how the NFL was conducting its business on hiring minorities candidates is simply a losing position, a losing argument. It's a dark, bad chapter for the league. Defending it doesn't make it any better.

You also can't get an interview if you're not applying. There's no count of who got passed over just add there is no count of who applied for the position. People hey interviewed based off their resume and work. There just aren't that many black coaches in high school to get interviewed for college jobs and then even less for pro jobs. It was based off numbers when no one actually looked at the percentages. You can't hire if no one is working.

[DougDew]

How can you become a head coach if you can't a job interview?      How can you qualify for an interview if you can't even become a coordinator?     Where was the color blind world there?

On what basis do you assume that your last question is automatically related to your first two, and not consider the possibility that none were simply qualified at the time.

Again...is there a list of minority coaches that had equal resumes to DGreen, TDungy, Ray Rhodes, before they were hired to their positions, but got turned down for interviews in favor of less qualified white coaches? If there is no list, you have to consider the possibility that no other minorities were qualified...NONE.

That may not square with the way you choose to look at it, but I'm not the one that is thinking with inherent bias by making the assumption that there were many minority coaches who were qualified.

[ThatOneColtFan]

I remember being afraid that we'd lose Pep after last season. I thought he did pretty good last year and helped Luck with efficiency.

After this year, I am more apathetic to him leaving. He is sort of a stubborn OC, and I feel that we only adjust when we're down the hole instead of going by what's on the field. I don't think he's bad though, but there are certainly better choices out there that can take the offense in a better direction.

Step one would be to drop the power running bullcrap. Yes, regardless of what Luck's numbers say, Pagano will be the first to tell you that we're a power running team. Sorry, but we DO NOT have the pieces for that, and good luck finding all the pieces and personnel we need for it to be effective. We need really talented linemen which we don't have outside of Ant.

Whatever though. If he comes back I wouldn't mind - same for if he left.

[NewColtsFan]

You also can't get an interview if you're not applying. There's no count of who got passed over just add there is no count of who applied for the position. People hey interviewed based off their resume and work. There just aren't that many black coaches in high school to get interviewed for college jobs and then even less for pro jobs. It was based off numbers when no one actually looked at the percentages. You can't hire if no one is working.

 

You can apply for a high school job.

 

But that doesn't get you an interview.

 

You can even apply for a college job.

 

But that doesn't get you an interview.

 

It's rare to apply for an an NFL Head Coaching job.

 

And that doesn't get you an interview either.

[NewColtsFan]

On what basis do you assume that your last question is automatically related to your first two, and not consider the possibility that none were simply qualified at the time.

Again...is there a list of minority coaches that had equal resumes to DGreen, TDungy, Ray Rhodes, before they were hired to their positions, but got turned down for interviews in favor of less qualified white coaches? If there is no list, you have to consider the possibility that no other minorities were qualified...NONE.

That may not square with the way you choose to look at it, but I'm not the one that is thinking with inherent bias by making the assumption that there were many minority coaches who were qualified.

 

The list is too tiny to be considered anything to take seriously.

 

Ask Dungy.    Do you know how long it take him to get interviews?     Not, how long it took him to get jobs,  but even interviews.

 

The percentage of minorities playing sports is large,  even huge.

 

The percentage of minorities in positions of authority is tiny.

 

You keep throwing out buzz phrases like "what makes you think they were qualified"...

 

Why wouldn't they be qualified?     Why are only white coaches qualified?

 

You know how many bad white coaches get hired?    Lots.

 

You operating under a flawed premise.    That the white coaches getting interviewed are qualified and that the minority coaches aren't.    That the minority coaches are not being passed over because they're minority,  that they're being passed by because they're not qualified.

 

Sorry,   but that's like former Dodger's GM Al Campanis said in baseball roughly 25-30 years ago....  the minorities were not getting manager and GM jobs because they weren't qualified.     That got him fired.

 

As I said,  you're making breathtakingly bad arguments.

 

And your objections remain specious.    The Rooney Rule only gives opportunities to interviews,  not a guarantee of a job.

 

And you keep coming with silly arguments against it when you should be celebrating it.    You should be celebrating opportunity offered.

 

Put another way,   since the Rooney rule went into effect more than a decade ago,  which minority coach got a job that shouldn't have?

 

I think you're going to struggle to come up with a single name.

[Gavin]

I don't see why this has to be turned in to black coach/white coach ordeal....Its quite pathetic really...Why cant they just be coaches

[Superman]

I don't think I said what you report me to be saying.

 

I guess to put it simply, as long as there is a rule that requires minority candidates to be interviewed, I can't make the blind assumption that they are being interviewed because the team feels like they are (highly) qualified.   That's what I would assume if there wasn't such a rule.   And perhaps others would blindly assume discrimination was occurring if no minorities interviewed, whereas I would not given the Shell, Rhodes, Dungy hiring prior to the policy.

 

Also, I think we are speaking to different audiences throughout our posts, and I'm tired of solving all of the NFL's social problems.    See you later on another thread.

 

I try not to make blind assumptions in any situation. 

 

To that point, I'm sure there have been Rooney rule candidates in the past; I don't blindly assume that every minority candidate is high on the team's list. But it's silly and actually a little offensive for anyone to assume that every black candidate is a Rooney rule candidate just because the Rooney rule exists.

 

Especially in a case like this. The Raiders want to interview two minority candidates. If you want to blindly assume something, it should be that they aren't worried about the Rooney rule, but that they actually want to interview these two candidates. If it were a Rooney rule appeasement, they'd only need one. 

 

You, however, made up a scenario in which the Raiders couldn't possibly want to interview Pep on his credentials and potential, so that means that not only is he a Rooney candidate, but the other minority candidate probably is as well, and this must be only to make things look good to the Raiders local fan base. That's too bad.

[OffensivelyPC]

I'm not saying Caldwell was only a Rooney interview. I'm saying people said he was only a Rooney interview, especially on this board.

Likewise, saying Pep is only a Rooney interview seems premature, if not totally misplaced, unnecessary, and maybe even false, given the fact that they've requested interviews with two minority candidates already.

Not to mention people have been saying that Pep is an NFL HC candidate for quite some time now - at least since like October.  I'll put my bet on the rumors that he is a HC candidate being true because the media is reporting the interest on him as opposed ot the media reporting on black HCs just to influence the pool of Rooney interviews.

[DougDew]

The percentage of minorities playing sports is large,  even huge.

 

The percentage of minorities in positions of authority is tiny.

I was going to let this thread die...but it hasn't. If you can remain calm and objective, please read closely.

A person can make whatever case you want to make about practices and use percentages to do that. The trick is to use whatever denominator you want, and to not have the general public totally understand where it came from. Its a tactic that's been used for decades.

In this situation, you are comparing the number of (whatever you're measuring) in positions of authority to the number of players. That comparison will yield an extremely low percentage.

It takes qualifications and achievements to fairly be placed into positions of authority. So the proper denominator to judge the NFL's promotion practices is not to use the number of players as the denominator, but to use the number of individuals who are qualified as the denominator. That data is not easy to get. Some companies get accused of discrimination when the denominator is excessively large, where it is based not on the pool of qualified candidates, but the pool of general population. The qualifications to be a member of the general population is simply....being alive....not necessarily qualified for anything. A percentage that is calculated using that denominator yields an excessively and unfairly low percentage. Its what I said before, you are using the typical analysis that we have been trained to look at to analyze social policy. I'm not looking at social policy...I'm looking at one specific company...the NFL.

Just off of the top of my head, qualifications for coaching spots would involve playing football, previous coaching experience, perhaps a college degree, perhaps a degree from a school other than basketweaving state college, and perhaps a nontutor assisted GPA. Likely there are countless other factors that can go into it for which I, you, a sociology professor, a sociology textbook author, or a member of the media, have no expertise in knowing.

You, a sociologist, and members of the media may just look at it the way that they've been taught to understand it in the larger discussion of social policy...which is why you just defaulted into using the number of players as your denominator.

The NFL can only draw from the pool of qualified candidates. It can't control where a player went to school, what type of assistance he may or may not have gotten, what his gpa was, what his major was, what school hired him as an assistant coach, what college promoted him etc...so it can't control its denominator very well.

About the only way that anybody can justify that the NFL should use the number of players as a denominator is to suggest that the NFL needs to make up for all of the possible discrimination that occurred in college admissions, college hirings, etc.

And plenty of people do just that. They operate with the mindset that because the NFL is rich enough to do it, that they have the obligation to address many social issues that involve inequities or the appearance of oppression.

But if you want to talk about the American version of Marxism, we'll have to step off to another forum.

[DougDew]

The list is too tiny to be considered anything to take seriously.

 

Ask Dungy.    Do you know how long it take him to get interviews?     Not, how long it took him to get jobs,  but even interviews.

 

The percentage of minorities playing sports is large,  even huge.

 

The percentage of minorities in positions of authority is tiny.

I was hoping the thread would die...but it hasn't.

Using the number of players as your denominator is an excessively large universe. Its what I said before. Its what most everybody has been trained to use if they got a passing grade in sociology.

You need to use the number of people qualified for the job as your denominator. That data is hard to get. But just off the top of my head, qualifications would also include coaching experience at the professional, college, and maybe high school levels. Qualifications may include a college degree. Ranking applicants may also involve where the degree came from, what they majored in, and if they maintained their GPA without the assistance of a tutor.

Now we're delving into the NFL having to make up for whatever discriminatory practices may have been taking place at institutions beyond their control. That involves social policy, and that is the venue that we have all been educated in using the broad denominators. Which is why you defaulted into using the number of players as your denominator.

I don't use such broad denominators and require people to go get the data set of qualified applicants before they slander an institution. If that data is too hard to get...maybe they should refrain from accusing institutions of discrimination.

[BOTT]

you're basing your opinion of Pagano's football IQ on what he says to the media?  good call 

 

:slaphead:

To be fair, Pagano doesn't come across well in pressers. I counted 8 "ya knows" in a 20 second sound bite after last Sundays game. Now, does that mean he has a low football IQ? No....but it does make you wonder if he measures up to the best coaches in the league. Maybe it's not fair, but let's not act like we don't judge people....like.....ya know......how articulate they are.