Teams still asking wrong questions at the Combine....

[TdungyW/12]

25 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Totally agree!!! I am still baffled we are sitting in 2018 and without rhyme or reason, these questions are asked without anything to base their question on.

 

If you want to question intangibles like "are you capable of being a leader? do you see your ego causing a problem in the locker room?" etc., that would be one thing. But things like these make me shake my head.

It’s to catch people off guard and to see how the react to situations .... your brain acts differently and you respond when put in awkward and uncomfortable spots .... people want to see that. 

 

What the hell do lll do you think is said on the field, on the line, under the pile? You think they are nice and politically correct? HELL NO, they say anything and everything to get you mad, to get you to NOT think about the game and focus on the person offending you. It’s all mind games and if you get offended over something like if you like men would blow a gasket and get a penalty in a crucial moment that could possibly lose the game. 

[DougDew]

36 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

That is wrong and should be/is stopped too

My point is that I think its perfectly ok to ask a candidate a question that is POTENTIALLY offensive to him/her.  The best way to do that is to NOT make a preconceived definition of what is offensive and what isn't.

 

Was your mother a prostitute and your father a Nazi are two questions that could be offensive to the candidate.  Do they react with cowardice or do they respond in a more assertive way to the (assumed) offensive question?

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

My point is that I think its perfectly ok to ask a candidate a question that is POTENTIALLY offensive to him/her.  The best way to do that is to NOT make a preconceived definition of what is offensive and what isn't.

 

Was your mother a prostitute and your father a Nazi are two questions that could be offensive to the candidate.  Do they react with cowardice or do they respond in a more assertive way to the (assumed) offensive question?

The questions shouldn’t be asked the way they were

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

My point is that I think its perfectly ok to ask a candidate a question that is POTENTIALLY offensive to him/her.  The best way to do that is to NOT make a preconceived definition of what is offensive and what isn't.

 

Was your mother a prostitute and your father a Nazi are two questions that could be offensive to the candidate.  Do they react with cowardice or do they respond in a more assertive way to the (assumed) offensive question?

This last sentence says it. It's a big maturity thing. Not just what you say in response, but HOW you say it? That can tell if you are a leader and can keep a level head in tough situations. Dez Bryant and Derrius Guice are a WR and RB, so they are playmakers that would have a big effect on the game. The questions were asked to them for a reason.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

It’s to catch people off guard and to see how the react to situations .... your brain acts differently and you respond when put in awkward and uncomfortable spots .... people want to see that. 

 

What the hell do lll do you think is said on the field, on the line, under the pile? You think they are nice and politically correct? HELL NO, they say anything and everything to get you mad, to get you to NOT think about the game and focus on the person offending you. It’s all mind games and if you get offended over something like if you like men would blow a gasket and get a penalty in a crucial moment that could possibly lose the game. 

Agreed.  Also If someone is asked a milk-toast question in an interview like, "do you make a good leader"? the candidate would just nonsense some canned responses.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The questions shouldn’t be asked the way they were

Why?  Because they might have to say "yes"?

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, TdungyW/12 said:

I think people need to quit being offended by stupid crap and quit being ( word for cat )! This world has gotten super sensitive over the dumbest crap. Get the F over it and move on. 

 

I went theough CHP academy and corrections and they ask you much worse questions then that. This outages me more then anything when I see things like this. Damn cry baby just play football .... you just want your name being talked about or what?

 

edit: someone will be offended by this. 

 

You misunderstand..  

 

Teams are not asking these questions to just check out a players reaction.   If that were the case it would happen to most of them.   

 

It only happened to Guice.   (That we know of).

 

When this happens it's because think they might be true.   They want to know if they're drafting a gay person.   Teams worry about locker room chemistry.   Or the "is your mom a hooker" question is to find out a players background.   Some of these kids come from unimaginably bad backgrounds and teams want to know if the kid will have constant family problems as a result. 

 

Lots of players who are in the NFL right now have bad family backgrounds and the players have a ton of bagge to deal with.   Teams decide if they want the extra headache.    Is the kid worth the trouble?

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Why?  Because they might have to say "yes"?

No because the way the questions were asked were uncouth 

  

 

  I feel this way because I am asked at least once a week why I can’t tie shoes or is my hand broken

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You misunderstand..  

 

Teams are not asking these questions to just check out a players reaction.   If that were the case it would happen to most of them.   

 

It only happened to Guice.   (That we know of).

 

When this happens it's because think they might be true.   They want to know if they're drafting a gay person.   Teams worry about locker room chemistry.   Or the "is your mom a hooker" question is to find out a players background.   Some of these kids come from unimaginably bad backgrounds and teams want to know if the kid will have constant family problems as a result. 

 

Lots of players who are in the NFL right now have bad family backgrounds and the players have a ton of bagge to deal with.   Teams decide if they want the extra headache.    Is the kid worth the trouble?

As I said before there are others to get a reaction out of players

[TdungyW/12]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed.  Also If someone is asked a milk-toast question in an interview like, "do you make a good leader"? the candidate would just nonsense some canned responses.

Exactly they are groomed to answer those regular questions bythe book. 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

You misunderstand..  

 

Teams are not asking these questions to just check out a players reaction.   If that were the case it would happen to most of them.   

 

It only happened to Guice.   (That we know of).

 

When this happens it's because think they might be true.   They want to know if they're drafting a gay person.   Teams worry about locker room chemistry.   Or the "is your mom a hooker" question is to find out a players background.   Some of these kids come from unimaginably bad backgrounds and teams want to know if the kid will have constant family problems as a result. 

 

Lots of players who are in the NFL right now have bad family backgrounds and the players have a ton of bagge to deal with.   Teams decide if they want the extra headache.    Is the kid worth the trouble?

I have a question, has Guice been openly friendly with other players inappropriately in some way, or really flamboyant, or something else to suggest he's gay? I don't have info on his personal life and thought you might know more than me. After the Michael Sam issue, I think a lot of teams could be looking towards the side of caution now. Not sure if Guice was asked that to get his response for some reason, or if there may be a kernel of truth to it.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You misunderstand..  

 

Teams are not asking these questions to just check out a players reaction.   If that were the case it would happen to most of them.   

 

It only happened to Guice.   (That we know of).

 

When this happens it's because think they might be true.   They want to know if they're drafting a gay person.   Teams worry about locker room chemistry.   Or the "is your mom a hooker" question is to find out a players background.   Some of these kids come from unimaginably bad backgrounds and teams want to know if the kid will have constant family problems as a result. 

 

Lots of players who are in the NFL right now have bad family backgrounds and the players have a ton of bagge to deal with.   Teams decide if they want the extra headache.    Is the kid worth the trouble?

I would agree with you, but those two questions are unrelated, so I don't see why they would want to know if they are true.  If they were trying to find out if it was true, I'd think they'd ask the SAME question 3 or 4 different ways.

 

Teams may think that Guice, and only Guice, is a head-case ala Jonathan Martin and are trying to see how he reacts to potential bullying..

[SaturdayAllDay]

Im not 100% on the laws you guys have down there, but I know up here in Canada a person cant be refused employment because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. So to even ask someone their sexual orientation in a job interview leaves them open to serious charges in the event a person isnt hired. Technically, by a team bypassing them in the draft (even if its only in the first round and another team takes him before their next pick), they could make a case that it was done specifically because of their sexual orientation. That leaves the NFL teams in a very bad legal position, not to mention the social backlash. I think that is more likely the issue that the NFL has with these kinds of questions being asked. Has very little to do with protecting "*" and more about protecting their own butts from serious legal trouble. 

[TdungyW/12]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You misunderstand..  

 

Teams are not asking these questions to just check out a players reaction.   If that were the case it would happen to most of them.   

 

It only happened to Guice.   (That we know of).

 

When this happens it's because think they might be true.   They want to know if they're drafting a gay person.   Teams worry about locker room chemistry.   Or the "is your mom a hooker" question is to find out a players background.   Some of these kids come from unimaginably bad backgrounds and teams want to know if the kid will have constant family problems as a result. 

 

Lots of players who are in the NFL right now have bad family backgrounds and the players have a ton of bagge to deal with.   Teams decide if they want the extra headache.    Is the kid worth the trouble?

Too bad .... players r uncomfortable with “gay” players .... get over it. 

 

I know it’s not their fault when and where they were brought up and I sympathize with that But you know it’s there so don’t get offended when it comes up. Like if you go in fights and have a bad temper don’t get * and offended when they bring it up. Doesn’t matter if you don’t want to think about it or remember it. Too damn bad it’s an interview process to get a job to make millions of dollars to play a game deal with it. If you show your a problem and are a distraction then they won’t want you! 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Im not 100% on the laws you guys have down there, but I know up here in Canada a person cant be refused employment because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. So to even ask someone their sexual orientation in a job interview leaves them open to serious charges in the event a person isnt hired. Technically, by a team bypassing them in the draft (even if its only in the first round and another team takes him before their next pick), they could make a case that it was done specifically because of their sexual orientation. That leaves the NFL teams in a very bad legal position, not to mention the social backlash. I think that is more likely the issue that the NFL has with these kinds of questions being asked. Has very little to do with protecting "*" and more about protecting their own butts from serious legal trouble. 

I don't think this applies to the NFL draft. Even if it did, a team would never be charged because they could simply say they liked player x better for whatever reason and wanted to draft him instead. 

[TdungyW/12]

4 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Im not 100% on the laws you guys have down there, but I know up here in Canada a person cant be refused employment because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. So to even ask someone their sexual orientation in a job interview leaves them open to serious charges in the event a person isnt hired. Technically, by a team bypassing them in the draft (even if its only in the first round and another team takes him before their next pick), they could make a case that it was done specifically because of their sexual orientation. That leaves the NFL teams in a very bad legal position, not to mention the social backlash. I think that is more likely the issue that the NFL has with these kinds of questions being asked. Has very little to do with protecting "*" and more about protecting their own butts from serious legal trouble. 

I don’t agree with any of that law.

[IndyD4U]

I don't get the point of these questions. It's 2018, he can like unicorns and want to marry a goat for all I care. 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, IndyD4U said:

I don't get the point of these questions. It's 2018, he can like unicorns and want to marry a goat for all I care. 

The only I care is if he can play his position 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

The only I care is if he can play his position 

That's why you're not a GM, there's a lot more to care about than that. How you play isn't everything.

[PrincetonTiger]

7 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Im not 100% on the laws you guys have down there, but I know up here in Canada a person cant be refused employment because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. So to even ask someone their sexual orientation in a job interview leaves them open to serious charges in the event a person isnt hired. Technically, by a team bypassing them in the draft (even if its only in the first round and another team takes him before their next pick), they could make a case that it was done specifically because of their sexual orientation. That leaves the NFL teams in a very bad legal position, not to mention the social backlash. I think that is more likely the issue that the NFL has with these kinds of questions being asked. Has very little to do with protecting "*" and more about protecting their own butts from serious legal trouble. 

As @Jared Cisneros said although those laws exist here in the US it is hard to prove with the draft

[SaturdayAllDay]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't think this applies to the NFL draft. Even if it did, a team would never be charged because they could simply say they liked player x better for whatever reason and wanted to draft him instead. 

Thats true in any hiring process. They can say they liked another candidate better and hired them instead. Yet these cases still go to court. Even the possible backlash of them being taken to court for it could be bad for business.

 

Whats easier, not asking a question that has nothing to do with how a person will do their job or trying to deal with the backlash of a human rights violation? 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

That's why you're not a GM, there's a lot more to care about than that. How you play isn't everything.

It is the biggest part for someone who wants to play in the NFL

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Im not 100% on the laws you guys have down there, but I know up here in Canada a person cant be refused employment because of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. So to even ask someone their sexual orientation in a job interview leaves them open to serious charges in the event a person isnt hired. Technically, by a team bypassing them in the draft (even if its only in the first round and another team takes him before their next pick), they could make a case that it was done specifically because of their sexual orientation. That leaves the NFL teams in a very bad legal position, not to mention the social backlash. I think that is more likely the issue that the NFL has with these kinds of questions being asked. Has very little to do with protecting "*" and more about protecting their own butts from serious legal trouble. 

I agree.  Its against the law here too, I believe, for a normal employer.

 

 But Guice was asked TWO questions that are unrelated, so I think the team could say they were grilling him because the employees of their company (players) say those kinds of things all the time to each other.

 

Employees of a typical company aren't allowed to insinuate those things about their coworkers.

 

Maybe the NFL should have some anti-offensive-talking-to-the-other-teams-players policy.  The refs will start throwing flags, and slowing the game down more, by penalizing a player for calling the other player's mom a ..........

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Thats true in any hiring process. They can say they liked another candidate better and hired them instead. Yet these cases still go to court. Even the possible backlash of them being taken to court for it could be bad for business.

 

Whats easier, not asking a question that has nothing to do with how a person will do their job or trying to deal with the backlash of a human rights violation? 

It does have to with your job. Your maturity, decision making, decisions off the field with other questions, your dedication to the game, etc... The NFL is never going to get hit with a human rights violation, not now, not ever.

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I have a question, has Guice been openly friendly with other players inappropriately in some way, or really flamboyant, or something else to suggest he's gay? I don't have info on his personal life and thought you might know more than me. After the Michael Sam issue, I think a lot of teams could be looking towards the side of caution now. Not sure if Guice was asked that to get his response for some reason, or if there may be a kernel of truth to it.

 

Teams have been asking the Gay question for a long time.    It hasn't surfaced as a result if Michael Sam.  

 

But in the world we live in the NFL is telling teams NOT TO ASK the question anymore.  If you can play, you can play.   Being gay is not supposed to matter. 

 

Is Guice gay?    Don't know, don't care.  Never heard a word.   But I suspect the team that asked was given a tip by someone who either knows, or has a hunch.

 

Very unfortunate.

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Thats true in any hiring process. They can say they liked another candidate better and hired them instead. Yet these cases still go to court. Even the possible backlash of them being taken to court for it could be bad for business.

 

Whats easier, not asking a question that has nothing to do with how a person will do their job or trying to deal with the backlash of a human rights violation? 

Yep the tricky part of that law is the proof 

   The Powers that be often have ways to get around that

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

It is the biggest part for someone who wants to play in the NFL

Of course, but a great player that makes bad decisions (like Justin Blackmon or Josh Gordon), is still a bust. You have to know everything about the player, and the interviews tell what the combine and game film can't.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Teams have been asking the Gay question for a long time.    It hasn't surfaced as a result if Michael Sam.  

 

But in the world we live in the NFL is telling teams NOT TO ASK the question anymore.  If you can play, you can play.   Being gay is not supposed to matter. 

 

Is Guice gay?    Don't know, don't care.  Never heard a word.   But I suspect the team that asked was given a tip by someone who either knows, or has a hunch.

 

Very unfortunate.

 

As I said before the moment the NFL said Stop it should have stopped 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

Of course, but a great player that makes bad decisions (like Justin Blackmon or Josh Gordon), is still a bust. You have to know everything about the player, and the interviews tell what the combine and game film can't.

The bad apples don’t just go bad overnight

   They have skeletons in their closets

     and their personal beliefs and/or parents work History are not worthy

[SaturdayAllDay]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It does have to with your job. Your maturity, decision making, decisions off the field with other questions, your dedication to the game, etc... The NFL is never going to get hit with a human rights violation, not now, not ever.

I dont believe it would happen either, but clearly the NFL is against these type of questions being asked, as they send out memos every year about it. There has to be a reason why they are so against it. My guess is its a legal thing. 

[Yoshinator]

If Guice falls in the draft, that would be unfortunate. He would of done it to himself though by making it a bigger deal than it should of been. Answer the question, and it's probably kept quiet between you and that team. Now it's known he's been targeted and it could cost him some cash. 

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The bad apples don’t just go bad overnight

   They have skeletons in their closets

     and their personal beliefs and/or parents work History are not worthy

That's why these questions are asked, to get all the intangibles of a player known. Learn their character, maturity and everything else. You couldn't possibly know by watching game film, but by interviewing players and digging deep, you can get a good feel on who they are and how they will be in the NFL.

[NewColtsFan]

41 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

Too bad .... players r uncomfortable with “gay” players .... get over it. 

 

I know it’s not their fault when and where they were brought up and I sympathize with that But you know it’s there so don’t get offended when it comes up. Like if you go in fights and have a bad temper don’t get * and offended when they bring it up. Doesn’t matter if you don’t want to think about it or remember it. Too damn bad it’s an interview process to get a job to make millions of dollars to play a game deal with it. If you show your a problem and are a distraction then they won’t want you! 

 

Thats your opinion.  But the opinion of the NFL is.....    don't do it.   Don't ask it.   

 

The NFL is not taking a poll or a survey.   The ship has sailed on this.   It's settled.

The league is not changing its mind.

 

And now there will likely be changes in procedure (video) and possibly fines. (Money or draft picks or barred from the combine).

 

This is not your dad's NFL anymore.   This is the friendly, inclusive NFL.    It may be too corporate for you, but they're trying to avoid the following headline.....

 

"NFL player commits suicide.  Says his life was hell forced to stay in the closet."

 

 The NFL is trying to avoid trouble.   They expect their coaches and executives to toe the line.

 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

That's why these questions are asked, to get all the intangibles of a player known. Learn their character, maturity and everything else. You couldn't possibly know by watching game film, but by interviewing players and digging deep, you can get a good feel on who they are and how they will be in the NFL.

IMONo they are a form of discrimination and staying silent and/or turning a blind eye only makes things worse

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

IMONo they are a form of discrimination and staying silent and/or turning a blind eye only makes things worse

That's where we are going to disagree. You know my position on this subject and I'm thinking like a GM trying to draft a player that's squeaky clean that won't give off surprises later. Playing ability is only half of it, making sure there's no baggage for the player's career is the other half. It happens a lot more than you think because teams don't do their due diligence. The surprise questions get the honest answers and genuine reactions because you can't plan for them. Sorry we can't agree on this one!

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Thats your opinion.  But the opinion of the NFL is.....    don't do it.   Don't ask it.   

 

The NFL is not taking a poll or a survey.   The ship has sailed on this.   It's settled.

The league is not changing its mind.

 

And now there will likely be changes in procedure (video) and possibly fines. (Money or draft picks or barred from the combine).

 

This is not your dad's NFL anymore.   This is the friendly, inclusive NFL.    It may be too corporate for you, but they're trying to avoid the following headline.....

 

"NFL player commits suicide.  Says his life was hell forced to stay in the closet.).  The NFL is trying to avoid trouble.   They expect their coaches and executives to toe the line.

 

Unfortunately, this is 100% true. I was also thinking of writing the bolded why they don't like the questions, and you beat me to it.

[Swan Ronson]

Who among us hasn't been asked in an interview if our mother is a prostitute.

 

Completely normal line of questioning.

[DougDew]

I think its more of a Jonathan Martin thing.  Martin brought his issue up to the public level when the issue was, in part, exacerbated by his own personality that couldn't deal with it effectively.

 

The only reason we know Guice was asked the gay question is because he, himself, went to the media about it.  That's telling.

[TdungyW/12]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Thats your opinion.  But the opinion of the NFL is.....    don't do it.   Don't ask it.   

 

The NFL is not taking a poll or a survey.   The ship has sailed on this.   It's settled.

The league is not changing its mind.

 

And now there will likely be changes in procedure (video) and possibly fines. (Money or draft picks or barred from the combine).

 

This is not your dad's NFL anymore.   This is the friendly, inclusive NFL.    It may be too corporate for you, but they're trying to avoid the following headline.....

 

"NFL player commits suicide.  Says his life was hell forced to stay in the closet.).  The NFL is trying to avoid trouble.   They expect their coaches and executives to toe the line.

 

It is my opinion and I’m not forcing it on anyone. 

 

The NFL has tried to become something it isn’t and won’t ever become because its players have too much freedom, power and money. 

 

They em need to stick to playing and stay out of political crap. Set a good example but don’t try and do something else and chastise others and lecture them when your own employees don’t follow. 

[NewColtsFan]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think its more of a Jonathan Martin thing.  Martin brought his issue up to the public level when the issue was, in part, exacerbated by his own personality that couldn't deal with it effectively.

 

The only reason we know Guice was asked the gay question is because he, himself, went to the media about it.  That's telling.

 

I don't know what you think is telling.   Guice didn't go to the media.

 

He was asked a question during an interview.    That's different.    And the question was about the strangest thing they were asked...    the answer players give most is....   are you a dog person or a cat person?

 

As far as I can tell, Guice wasn't complaining, he was more astonished than anything...