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

[NFLfan]

5 hours ago, Swan Ronson said:

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

 

Completely normal line of questioning.

 

Apparently, some here believe it is normal.

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

DD, 

 

Can political correctness be taken to the extreme? Absolutely. If a player has a number of red flags from domestic violence to negative perceptions of certain lifestyles of specific individuals, the odds are is that that person won't be drafted anyway so, what purpose does it serve to ask if athlete is gay? When a GM or HC presents a player with hypothetical situations of potential trouble, they must be based around whether or not said activity will impair their ability to play football in any way. 

 

The combine is basically a long interview to determine can you help us a ring & not embarrass our owner or community DD. Who somebody sleeps with is none of my darn business unless it interferes with winning games or team chemistry period. 

 

Being blunt or a smart caboose at the Combine as the interviewee is just foolish & asinine. No good ever comes from asking if a guy's mother is promiscuous man.

 

Questions must be relevant to the job description you are applying for. Throwing the ball, catching the ball, kicking the ball, running the ball into the end zone, tackling the ball carrier, or taking the ball away on a turnover. Who someone screws on their down time has no relevancy on a player's ability to perform on the field. Zero. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently, its also important to know if you're a compulsive gambler or a video game addict, based upon the history of former Colts.  

 

Its nice to take a philosophically superior perch about "non job related questions", but often times those questions are the most important ones.

 

I firmly believe that the people complaining about the question have the unwavering belief that the interviewer asked him the question because he doesn't want gay players on his team. They are so ready to pounce on what they think might be a first step in the direction of someone making a bigoted decision, they can't even stand someone asking the question

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Welcome to 2018 

 

 

   Like it or not the NFL is a role model for society

 

Please.  They choose that rabbit hole themselves, or are allowing themselves to be bullied into it.  Its turning people off because of it.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Please.  They choose that rabbit hole themselves, or are allowing themselves to be bullied into it.  Its turning people off because of it.

That was said in 1947 about MLB too

[southwest1]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Apparently, its also important to know if you're a compulsive gambler or a video game addict, based upon the history of former Colts.  

 

Its nice to take a philosophically superior perch about "non job related questions", but often times those questions are the most important ones.

 

I firmly believe that the people complaining about the question have the unwavering belief that the interviewer asked him the question because he doesn't want gay players on his team. They are so ready to pounce on what they think might is a first step in the direction of someone making a bigoted decision, they can't even stand someone asking the question

Philosophically superior perch? No, far from it. I also mentioned about former FBI agents being hired by NFL teams & the League Office in other entries in this thread DD. You don't think former intelligence agents can't gain access to restricted material & sealed records? They can. Therefore, what purpose does it serve to ask that question directly? 

 

And another thing, since when are NFL owners immune from asking inappropriate questions that no federal government institution could legally ask? 

[Malakai432]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The NFL says it has made it clear that questions like......    "do you like men?"   or....  "is your mother a prostitute?" are completely inappropriate and not acceptable.

 

The NFL says it sends out a reminder letter to teams every year....

 

And yet,  LSU's Derrius Guice was asked both those questions at the Combine...

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000920178/article/nfl-questions-to-derrius-guice-were-inappropriate

 

NFLPA President DeMarius Smith says teams who do that should be banned from the Combine.     That would stop it.

 

And Pro Football Talk suggests that ALL INTERVIEWS should be videotaped.     That way,  it's on the record.

 

Teams that do this are playing with fire.    If these guys are found out, I predict trouble ahead for them...

 

 

Yeah, stupid personal questions like that are just ridiculous.  I understand asking like "What do you like to do in your spare time, hobbies, ect.?  Asking personal questions about their family, sexual orientation, ect are just dumb.  

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

That was said in 1947 about MLB too

Not the same.   You're talking about a sports league that had a policy about discrimination that mirrored societal norms, then changed when the norms changed. 

 

I'm talking about what people are perceiving about why a question was asked.  And assuming the person is a bigot because they asked a "wrong" question.  Even after I've given several pragmatic examples of why the question might be relevant, they still choose to believe the interviewer was a bigot.  Those are some mighty strong ideological blinders people are wearing.

 

[XxGoosexX]

This is JMO and I'm sure i'll get bashed for saying this. I hope we don't draft him now, he has already shown he'll throw someone under a bus and can't handle an interview without causing a circus. he has shown he doesn't think before he speaks. He didn't think or realize what the media would do with what he was telling them? who knows what he' d say about our locker room or maybe our coaches will be to hard on him. To me, I think he may have shown why they asked the questions they did...  like I said it's JMO

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Not the same.   You're talking about a sports league that had a policy about discrimination that mirrored societal norms, then changed when the norms changed. 

 

I'm talking about what people are perceiving about why a question was asked.  And assuming the person is a bigot because they asked a "wrong" question.  Even after I've given several pragmatic examples of why the question might be relevant, they still choose to believe the interviewer was a bigot.  That's some mighty strong ideological blinders people are wearing.

 

No saying I am not watching that because I don’t like the way they do things is not different to what happen with JR and others

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

 

Yeah, stupid personal questions like that are just ridiculous.  I understand asking like "What do you like to do in your spare time, hobbies, ect.?  Asking personal questions about their family, sexual orientation, ect are just dumb.  

[DougDew]

I think its smart to know what a combine participant does in their spare time, if it could impact his on field performance or teammate interaction.  If not, then I wouldn't ask irrelevant questions. 

 

For example "have you ever punched your girlfriend?"  would be a nonfootball personal question that wouldn't impact much on the field.  He might be incarcerated or suffer a stabbing to the thigh, but absent that, that aspect of his personal life wouldn't impact his football play, so it should never be asked.  

 

Man, these NFL rabbit holes just have things totally backwards.

 

But I would also ask a candidate personal questions about compulsive gambling, because the NFL has special issues that may not matter to another company, who might not ask that particular question.  Kind of a unique job that might need unique questions.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think its smart to know what a combine participant does in their spare time, if it could impact his on field performance or teammate interaction.  If not, then I wouldn't ask irrelevant questions. 

 

For example "have you ever punched your girlfriend?"  would be a nonfootball personal question that wouldn't impact much on the field.  He might be incarcerated or suffer a fatal stabbing, but absent that, that aspect of his personal wouldn't impact his football play, so it should never be asked.  

 

Man, these NFL rabbit holes just have things totally backwards.

 

But I would also ask a candidate personal questions about if a candidate is a compulsive gambler, because the NFL has special issues that may not matter to another company, who might not ask that particular question.  Kind of a unique job that might need unique questions.

Those questions do not include your preferences in certain things or your parents work History 

 

  if a team employs a good PI any skeleton in the closet should come out

[NFLfan]

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

What I'm asking is, how do we know what a team asked Guice unless Guice told us himself?  Maybe he didn't, but what I read is that "Guice said......"  He complained to someone.

 

I would think if he just kept quiet about what he was asked nobody would have ever known he was asked those questions.

 

 Now, you are saying the world has a hunch he is gay.  He brought that on himself. And it wasn't even an accusation,  It was a question. A question where the team may not have even cared if he was gay but wanted his reaction.  Well, the world has it.  He complained (raised the issue knowing others would complain for him).

 

Sounds to me like he's prepping us, or the judicial system,  for a potential Jonathan Martin situation where he claims failure was caused by someone else having inappropriate behavior.

 

Asking you.  Why would HE reveal these questions?  How does putting a potential employer in an embarrassing spot help his situation at this time?  

 

Doug.....

 

I'm going to take your points one by one....      I've put them in bold....

 

1.      There was NO COMPLAINT.     Guice did a media interview at the combine.   He was asked a standard question....   "What was the strangest question you were asked?"    He answered honestly....    there was no complaint...   "I was asked if I liked men.     I was asked if my mother sold herself."     He seemed more surprised,  astonished,  than anything else.      There was no complaint.    He didn't go to the media.     He was doing a media interview.     If the question wasn't asked,  he wouldn't have answered.    

 

2.    He didn't think he had to "keep quiet" because he was simply answering a straight forward question that gets asked all the time by the media.     I have asked that question when doing interviews with players.     He didn't think it was that big a deal to reveal the info.     In his world,  the answers were "no."   and "no."     It wasn't a big deal.

 

3.    Where did "the world" come from?     The "world" knew nothing.    I literally wrote to you that the team may have been given a tip.     Maybe it came from a trainer,  or an equipment manager,  or a teammate.    Someone.    Guice may be gay.     Guice came from a terrible upbringing.     So the team gets a tip and asks Guice the questions.    The NFL has told teams NOT TO DO THIS!    Now, you may disapprove,  but the NFL's concerns are different than the concerns of the 32 teams.     They don't want the league to be viewed as anti-gay.    They don't want the league to be viewed as anti-black.    Have any white players been asked these questions?    To the best of my knowledge,  they've only been asked of black players.     The NFL is trying to be forward looking.    They don't want a suicide on their watch where the dying player complains he was made to feel as if being gay is a problem.    The NFL is trying to be in front of a potential disasterous PR nightmare.    The NFL is trying to avoid this.

 

4.   Guice did not "bring this upon himself"....   it was put upon him when the team asked him the questions.   You don't want to put a young player in that kind of position.    To reveal or not reveal.    And again,  when he did reveal, it was to answer a question.     He was not complaining.

 

5.    It only sounds like he's prepping us or the judicial system because you have completely twisted this into something it's not.     It was a straight forward answer to a straight forward media question.    Nothing more.   This only sounds bizarre to you, Doug.

 

6.    He revealed the answer because he asked a straight forward question.   Why do you think a 21 year old kid should know what to answer,  and what should be kept private.    I don't think the kid thought it was that big a deal.   He seemed surprised by the questions the team asked and when asked what was the strangest thing he was asked thought he had a great answer to give.     He gave it.     I'm confident he had no idea giving the answer would turn into a media event and lead to an NFL investigation.

 

I've gone through 3 and a half pages of comments.    And I've read your view of the world.    Suffice to say I do not share it.    But that's not imporant.    The NFL and the NFLPA also don't agree with you.    They understand what is wrong with what the team did,  even if you don't.    The policy is in place and the team ignored it.

 

The point is,  the questions asked by the team were in direct defiance of NFL orders.    It will likely lead to changes in the process.     Like the interviews being video taped.    It's a simple and straight forward fix and not that expensive.   And further violations will likely lead to financial fines,  or loss of draft picks.

 

You can argue and debate whether the NFL is wrong or not....    but the ship has sailed...   the horse,  or Colt, is out the barn.    The league has set policy and is not going backwards on it.     To fight it at this point is just spitting into the wind.    So the moisture coming back at you.....   is NOT rain.

 

 

[LockeDown]

Why are we not talking about Josh Rosens antics too?  If NFL teams are being policed for content, the players should be as well.  He has caught some flack but could still be a top 5 pick.  That's not punishment.  And dontveven say what he said wasn't bad.  His hat actually had the curse word on it for everyone to see.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, LockeDown said:

Why are we not talking about Josh Rosens antics too?  If NFL teams are being policed for content, the players should be as well.  He has caught some flack but could still be a top 5 pick.  That's not punishment.  And dontveven say what he said wasn't bad.  His hat actually had the curse word on it for everyone to see.

 

I have no idea what you're taking about?      So, I can't comment.

 

If you can be more specific,  then I can give a response....

 

[LockeDown]

10 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

That's not a cool thing to say to a fellow poster.  

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

Why are we not talking about Josh Rosens antics too?  If NFL teams are being policed for content, the players should be as well.  He has caught some flack but could still be a top 5 pick.  That's not punishment.  And dontveven say what he said wasn't bad.  His hat actually had the curse word on it for everyone to see.

It will be dealt with by someone but since he is a QB in a QB needy league sadly the behavior will be overlooked come Draft day

[NFLfan]

Just reading these posts is enough to tell me who I would hire and not hire to represent my company.

Some of the comments are just . 

[NFLfan]

3 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

That's not a cool thing to say to a fellow poster.  

 

I did not say it to anyone in particular. 

[oldunclemark]

11 hours ago, DraftMaster said:

Yeah, I agree. I get that it's weird that they ask for staring contests, your best dance moves or other stuff. But that's one of the most interesting parts of the combine. I get that football players are people too but they should have tougher skin than the average person. I mean get over those questions, because that's nothing compared to life in the NFL. Especially in" the gutter" of the NFL...just my two cents though.

I agree.

If I'm not only giving you millions of dollars and asking you to represent me and my franchise...and to win games for me,   I reserve the right to ask you anything I want to ask you in the interview process..

I want to see what you say.

The questions I ask will pale in comparison to what will,be thrown at you once you are in the eye of the fans and the media.

[LockeDown]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

Just reading these posts is enough to tell me who I would hire and not hire to represent my company.

Some of the comments are just . 

And the last posts you've made are condescending. 

[NFLfan]

12 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

And the last posts you've made are condescending. 

 

Still, I did not quote anyone. 

 

I noticed you did not repudiate any of the comments where posters are calling others "wusses" and "pansies". That says a lot.

[LockeDown]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

 

Still, I did not quote anyone. 

 

I noticed you did not repudiate any of the comments where posters are calling others "wusses" and pansies". That says a lot.

Nobody here said they liked the questioning.its a right to free speech.  When that right gets taken away, then we're all in trouble. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

Nobody here said they liked the questioning.its a right to free speech.  When that right gets taken away, then we're all in trouble. 

 

Free speech?

 

Rights taken away?

 

Who's in trouble?

 

Huh?

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

9 hours ago, TdungyW/12 said:

I don’t agree with any of that law.

 

???  The law that says you can't discriminate against a person for race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.???

 

Please tell me I misunderstand you.

 

Do you think it's OK to refuse to hire a person because they're black, gay, not Christian, etc.?

[OffensivelyPC]

If people cant handle offensive questions, theres a good chance they are not fit for the job. I was interviewed by the Indiana Board of Bar Examiners and the person I wanted to punch in the face most was some old lady. I have never been insulted so much by a group of presumably intelligent people, but I knew exactly what they were doing and why. So I kept my cool so they couldn't "win" and have an argument aginst me as to why I should not be an Indiana licensed attorney. 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

???  The law that says you can't discriminate against a person for race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.???

 

Please tell me I misunderstand you.

 

Do you think it's OK to refuse to hire a person because they're black, gay, not Christian, etc.?

My college goal was to enforce that as a Congressional Law/Civil Rights Attorney

[NFLfan]

12 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

Nobody here said they liked the questioning.its a right to free speech.  When that right gets taken away, then we're all in trouble. 

 

Well then, why did you have a problem with my right to freely state what I thought about the comments here?!!

 

I find it interesting what some folks call "free speech". For those folks, free speech is only brought up as an argument when they agree with something. If they disagree with someone, they say "shut up and play".

[NFLfan]

10 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If people cant handle offensive questions, theres a good chance they are not fit for the job. I was interviewed by the Indiana Board of Bar Examiners and the person I wanted to punch in the face most was some old lady. I have never been insulted so much by a group of presumably intelligent people, but I knew exactly what they were doing and why. So I kept my cool so they couldn't "win" and have an argument aginst me as to why I should not be an Indiana licensed attorney. 

 

What if they asked you details about your sex life or information about your wife? Would that be ok? I could get graphic but it would not be appropriate. But you get what I am saying. When is a question out of line?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

9 hours 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.

 

???  What's it matter if Guice is actually gay?  A team shouldn't draft him because of it?  Michael Sam "issue"?  What if Andrew Luck came out of the closet tomorrow?  Should the Colts trade/cut him so we don't have an "Andrew Luck Issue" ? ...

 

9 hours ago, TdungyW/12 said:

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

 

So if a young player is really good at football, but they're gay, they should just quit because they'll never be accepted in an NFL locker room...   and we should all accept it and get the F over it... 

[DougDew]

47 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doug.....

 

I'm going to take your points one by one....      I've put them in bold....

 

1.      There was NO COMPLAINT.     Guice did a media interview at the combine.   He was asked a standard question....   "What was the strangest question you were asked?"    He answered honestly....    there was no complaint...   "I was asked if I liked men.     I was asked if my mother sold herself."     He seemed more surprised,  astonished,  than anything else.      There was no complaint.    He didn't go to the media.     He was doing a media interview.     If the question wasn't asked,  he wouldn't have answered.    

 

2.    He didn't think he had to "keep quiet" because he was simply answering a straight forward question that gets asked all the time by the media.     I have asked that question when doing interviews with players.     He didn't think it was that big a deal to reveal the info.     In his world,  the answers were "no."   and "no."     It wasn't a big deal.

 

3.    Where did "the world" come from?     The "world" knew nothing.    I literally wrote to you that the team may have been given a tip.     Maybe it came from a trainer,  or an equipment manager,  or a teammate.    Someone.    Guice may be gay.     Guice came from a terrible upbringing.     So the team gets a tip and asks Guice the questions.    The NFL has told teams NOT TO DO THIS!    Now, you may disapprove,  but the NFL's concerns are different than the concerns of the 32 teams.     They don't want the league to be viewed as anti-gay.    They don't want the league to be viewed as anti-black.    Have any white players been asked these questions?    To the best of my knowledge,  they've only been asked of black players.     The NFL is trying to be forward looking.    They don't want a suicide on their watch where the dying player complains he was made to feel as if being gay is a problem.    The NFL is trying to be in front of a potential disasterous PR nightmare.    The NFL is trying to avoid this.

 

4.   Guice did not "bring this upon himself"....   it was put upon him when the team asked him the questions.   You don't want to put a young player in that kind of position.    To reveal or not reveal.    And again,  when he did reveal, it was to answer a question.     He was not complaining.

 

5.    It only sounds like he's prepping us or the judicial system because you have completely twisted this into something it's not.     It was a straight forward answer to a straight forward media question.    Nothing more.   This only sounds bizarre to you, Doug.

 

6.    He revealed the answer because he asked a straight forward question.   Why do you think a 21 year old kid should know what to answer,  and what should be kept private.    I don't think the kid thought it was that big a deal.   He seemed surprised by the questions the team asked and when asked what was the strangest thing he was asked thought he had a great answer to give.     He gave it.     I'm confident he had no idea giving the answer would turn into a media event and lead to an NFL investigation.

 

I've gone through 3 and a half pages of comments.    And I've read your view of the world.    Suffice to say I do not share it.    But that's not imporant.    The NFL and the NFLPA also don't agree with you.    They understand what is wrong with what the team did,  even if you don't.    The policy is in place and the team ignored it.

 

The point is,  the questions asked by the team were in direct defiance of NFL orders.    It will likely lead to changes in the process.     Like the interviews being video taped.    It's a simple and straight forward fix and not that expensive.   And further violations will likely lead to financial fines,  or loss of draft picks.

 

You can argue and debate whether the NFL is wrong or not....    but the ship has sailed...   the horse,  or Colt, is out the barn.    The league has set policy and is not going backwards on it.     To fight it at this point is just spitting into the wind.    So the moisture coming back at you.....   is NOT rain.

 

 

I agree that his motives were misrepresented by me and most of the stuff you said applies to a position earlier in the thread that I no longer take.  He was interviewed and simply answered the question rather innocently...but reactions from others are more serious, which is really my point. 

 

However, it is important for NFL teams to judge if someone is a Jonathan Martin type.

 

As far as policy and the ship sailing, that's fine.  The NFL can set whatever policy it wants whether it be rooted in pragmatism, fairness, or a weird way of enforcing social justice.

 

But this story has been lifted to a level that goes beyond the situation.  A single team interviewer reportedly asked one player two unrelated questions that the player sort of laughed off.  Social watchdogs apparently have more of a problem with it than the player, and the NFL has to come out and make its stance known too.

 

Its similar to 1930's Germany, when the paranoid social police wondered if people saluted the cause quickly enough, and prosecuted those who they thought didn't.  I'm sure people in N Korea must not give any impression they are not all-in on the ideology or else there is heck to pay.  We aren't so violent, but the paranoid social police still get upset if there is a whiff of bigotry anywhere, and must elevate even benign things to a level to where punishment is visible and sends a message.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its similar to 1930's Germany, when the paranoid social police wondered if people saluted the cause quickly enough, and prosecuted those who they thought didn't.

 

You.

Have.

Got.

To.

Be.

Kidding.

Me.

 

[OffensivelyPC]

Just now, NFLfan said:

 

What if they asked you about your sex life or information about your wife? Would that be ok? I could get graphic but it would not be appropriate. But you get what I am saying. When is a question out of line?

Its not about answering the question honestly, its about resolve. You can tell them that its none of their business quite frankly, respectfully of course. You can avoid the question and still answer it, i.e. I love my wife very much and we have a healthy relationship. Alternatively you can get emotional or make a scene about it to others. Any of those reactions tells the prospective employer something about yourself.

 

In my line of work, it would have told the Board that I might not represent a potential client as well as I should because you often dont obhectively do your best work when you are too emotional.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

15 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

I find it interesting what some folks call "free speech". For those folks, free speech is only brought up as an argument when they agree with something. If they disagree with someone, they say "shut up and play".

 

Ironically, it's the ones that tell others to "shut up and stop being so sensitive" that usually need to take their own advice...

 

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You.

Have.

Got.

To.

Be.

Kidding.

Me.

 

The paranoia is the same as is the tactic to make something a bigger deal in order to send a message.

 

You're looking at the differences in the policies and making the judgment on whether or not the paranoia about descent or tactic to enforce policy is justified..  A common mistake.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, DougDew said:

The paranoia is the same as is the tactic to make something a bigger deal in order to send a message.

 

You're looking at the differences in the policies and making the judgment on whether or not the paranoia or tactic is justified..  A common mistake.

 

I think I understand the target you were aiming for, it's just the 1930s Germany reference was... way off the mark.

 

Dissidents in 1930s Germany were murdered in the dark of night or shipped off to concentration camps... to be murdered.

 

That's nothing compared to a little public-shaming in the internet-age, or the loss of a job because you violated company policy or federal law.

 

[PrincetonTiger]

Viewpoint from TigerTown   

   Here are two phrases that sum of my life

    If you don’t stand for something you stand for nothing

 

    If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem

 

 

   FYI

   I have lived with constant questions about why I can’t do things and during college I had to inform every new roommate and/or Professor what I could or couldn’t do and often why

[OffensivelyPC]

8 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You.

Have.

Got.

To.

Be.

Kidding.

Me.

 

I laughed at this WAY harder than I thought I would. Showed my wife and you got another good laugh.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The paranoia is the same as is the tactic to make something a bigger deal in order to send a message.

 

You're looking at the differences in the policies and making the judgment on whether or not the paranoia about descent or tactic to enforce policy is justified..  A common mistake.

 

I'm not sure you even realize......

 

This is YOU in a nutshell.