NFL '22 Offseason: Hirings, firings, signings, trades, cuts and cap hits on parade

[Indigo]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

I think it's funny that anyone would think that was serious.  While I never really cared for the guy, anyone dying at 24 is tragic.  It was in poor taste to post what I did.

There’s a time and place for “jokes”. It was tolerable while Haskins was alive, but saying that he deserved to lose his life over something purely aesthetic?
 

At least you weren’t as bad as Gil Brandt:

 

 

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

I think it's funny that anyone would think that was serious.  While I never really cared for the guy, anyone dying at 24 is tragic.  It was in poor taste to post what I did.

It was in poor taste, just like every other time you've mentioned that he deserved a broken leg for asking that. Or Lamar Jackson said he wanted the Ravens to retire two numbers for him. 

[MJWalker45]

I mentioned this in the XFL forum but thought it fits here as well:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33717947/xfl-announces-partnership-nfl-alumni-academy-scout-train-potential-players-xfl-2023-season

The article doesn't explicitly mention players from current NFL teams being sent to XFL squads for extra reps, but if that happened it would give the XFL a large leg up on the USFL.  I guess the Academy would function like Team Dallas did in the original WLAF, where players could be training in a central location and going out as needed.

 

"At a time when the USFL has also entered a crowded spring football landscape, the XFL's deal with the NFL Alumni Academy is exclusive, the league said. The XFL will collaborate on scouting and training resources, and all players who participate in the academy this season will receive an opt-in contract to join the XFL in 2023".

 

"In a statement, XFL president Russ Brandon called the agreement a "monumental partnership not only for the XFL, but for the entire football ecosystem." The goal of the partnership, the league said, is to "expand player cycles," servicing both the NFL in the fall and the XFL in the spring".

[tBBP]

3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I mentioned this in the XFL forum but thought it fits here as well:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33717947/xfl-announces-partnership-nfl-alumni-academy-scout-train-potential-players-xfl-2023-season

The article doesn't explicitly mention players from current NFL teams being sent to XFL squads for extra reps, but if that happened it would give the XFL a large leg up on the USFL.  I guess the Academy would function like Team Dallas did in the original WLAF, where players could be training in a central location and going out as needed.

 

"At a time when the USFL has also entered a crowded spring football landscape, the XFL's deal with the NFL Alumni Academy is exclusive, the league said. The XFL will collaborate on scouting and training resources, and all players who participate in the academy this season will receive an opt-in contract to join the XFL in 2023".

 

"In a statement, XFL president Russ Brandon called the agreement a "monumental partnership not only for the XFL, but for the entire football ecosystem." The goal of the partnership, the league said, is to "expand player cycles," servicing both the NFL in the fall and the XFL in the spring".

 

I may be misremembering, but isn't that what the AAF originally wanted to do? 

 

Either way, if this goes through, could we possibly get an actual farm system in the NFL (that doesn't include the Power 5 CFB)? It'd be interesting to see if this does go through, and if so whether NFL teams start picking affiliates in the future.

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

I may be misremembering, but isn't that what the AAF originally wanted to do? 

 

Either way, if this goes through, could we possibly get an actual farm system in the NFL (that doesn't include the Power 5 CFB)? It'd be interesting to see if this does go through, and if so whether NFL teams start picking affiliates in the future.

I don't think we'd get a 32 team league, but maybe a 12-16 team league with NFL teams assigning their players to a set squad. NFL Europe worked with a player's pool assignment system, but the second year of WLAF I believe certain teams in the league were assigned players from NFL teams. 

[throwuascenario]

On 4/8/2022 at 11:14 AM, MJWalker45 said:

With this and the Flores suit, the NFL leadership is looking pretty bad at the moment. When the Titans, reportedly, already had the coach hired before they interviewed the other candidates, that's not following the rules the NFL says they are all following. 

 

The rule is to interview - nothing is stated about intent to hire. Also, they are in no way legally bound to follow that rule. It is not a law and is not treated as such.

[gosioux76]

11 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

 

The rule is to interview - nothing is stated about intent to hire. Also, they are in no way legally bound to follow that rule. It is not a law and is not treated as such.

 

While this may be true on paper, this is also why we have a civil courts system, so that an impartial third-party can rule on whether the league is following the intent of its own rules. The lawsuit between St. Louis and the Rams/NFL was used similarly. St. Louis believed the league did not abide by its own rules on relocation, and sued to argue the case in court. Though it was settled out of court, a trial would have certainly been a referendum on whether the league was following its own policies. Flores' case, on the surface, appears to be following a similar path. 

 

In other words, it doesn't have to be a "law" for it to merit scrutiny in court. And a court could absolutely determine that the league is legally bound to follow its own rule. 

 

[MJWalker45]

11 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

 

The rule is to interview - nothing is stated about intent to hire. Also, they are in no way legally bound to follow that rule. It is not a law and is not treated as such.

Telling a coach they have the job before they've even interviewed him, and while they're still interviewing other coaches is what I consider going against the intent and integrity of the rule. 

[throwuascenario]

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

While this may be true on paper, this is also why we have a civil courts system, so that an impartial third-party can rule on whether the league is following the intent of its own rules. The lawsuit between St. Louis and the Rams/NFL was used similarly. St. Louis believed the league did not abide by its own rules on relocation, and sued to argue the case in court. Though it was settled out of court, a trial would have certainly been a referendum on whether the league was following its own policies. Flores' case, on the surface, appears to be following a similar path. 

 

In other words, it doesn't have to be a "law" for it to merit scrutiny in court. And a court could absolutely determine that the league is legally bound to follow its own rule. 

 

 

But St. Louis had a much more vested interest. They paid hundreds of millions for a stadium to be built because they believed they were relatively safe from relocation due to the NFL's rules. Flores or whoever else spent what? A couple of hours? That's in no way comparable.

 

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Telling a coach they have the job before they've even interviewed him, and while they're still interviewing other coaches is what I consider going against the intent and integrity of the rule. 

 

The intent of the rule was to virtue signal, which they did by interviewing him at all. It's hilarious that the virtue signaling has blown up in their face, but that already hasn't stopped them from doubling down. Maybe someday the league will learn to stop feeding the mob.

 

Also: Can someone explain to me how it is that they aren't susceptible to lawsuit with their new rule that every team hire a minority offensive coach? How is that not in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act that disallows hiring on the basis of race?

[MJWalker45]

17 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

The intent of the rule was to virtue signal, which they did by interviewing him at all. It's hilarious that the virtue signaling has blown up in their face, but that already hasn't stopped them from doubling down. Maybe someday the league will learn to stop feeding the mob.

If you want to virtue signal, you write a letter and broadcast it on some random anniversary, you don't make a rule. By creating rules that are expected to be followed, they've moved beyond virtue signaling. That teams openly moved around it proves that they need a better way to make sure these rules are being followed.

20 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

Also: Can someone explain to me how it is that they aren't susceptible to lawsuit with their new rule that every team hire a minority offensive coach? How is that not in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act that disallows hiring on the basis of race?

 

Just like Flores is suing for violations of the Rooney Rule, another coach has the right to sue if they feel they can prove this rule affected them as well. 

[gosioux76]

55 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

But St. Louis had a much more vested interest. They paid hundreds of millions for a stadium to be built because they believed they were relatively safe from relocation due to the NFL's rules. Flores or whoever else spent what? A couple of hours? That's in no way comparable.

 

You can't really be suggesting that the only thing Brian Flores lost in this situation was time . And good lord, "stop feeding the mob?" The Rooney Rule is just "virtue signaling?" 

 

The Rooney Rule is an imperfect attempt to create more coaching opportunities for people of color. It's a recognition that a league, of which the majority of players are Black, has done a terrible job when it comes to hiring anyone but white coaches.   The issue is that the rule is weak and teams are able, and willing, to circumvent it and not take it seriously. That's what's at stake for Flores and countless other minority coaches who have reason to believe the system is working against them. 

 

 

[Indigo]

16 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

Also: Can someone explain to me how it is that they aren't susceptible to lawsuit with their new rule that every team hire a minority offensive coach? How is that not in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act that disallows hiring on the basis of race?

Literally speaking, the new is in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act. But I’m sure the higher-ups in both the NFL and Congress are going to write it off because “oh we’re just doing the Blacks a favor.”

[Sport]

I'll believe it when the body is cold, but if I know my NFL owners, I know they aren't fond of messing with their money. 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/04/12/congress-shares-details-with-ftc-of-alleged-washington-commanders-financial-scams-against-customers-and-the-nfl/

 

These ghouls will mostly look the other way on other improprieties just in case they too get involved in a scandal down the road, such as, hypothetically, I'll make up an example here, such as getting caught in a sex-trafficking ring in a massage parlor, but if you f*** with the dollars and cents they will end you over even small amounts of money. 

[throwuascenario]

29 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

You can't really be suggesting that the only thing Brian Flores lost in this situation was time . And good lord, "stop feeding the mob?" The Rooney Rule is just "virtue signaling?" 

 

The Rooney Rule is an imperfect attempt to create more coaching opportunities for people of color. It's a recognition that a league, of which the majority of players are Black, has done a terrible job when it comes to hiring anyone but white coaches.   The issue is that the rule is weak and teams are able, and willing, to circumvent it and not take it seriously. That's what's at stake for Flores and countless other minority coaches who have reason to believe the system is working against them. 

 

 

 

What did Flores lose besides time? He is not entitled to an NFL head coaching job, nor is anyone in the world.

 

13.4% of the US is African-American. There are 3 African-American coaches in the NFL, equaling 9.4% of coaches. 4 coaches would equal 12.5%, while 5 would go over at 15.6%. So the NFL is only 1 African-American coach away from being proportionally appropriate. I don't understand why there need to be rules in place to make a change when the problem is that small. If your point is that the majority of players are black, then why isn't that the problem? If anything, that would lead you to believe that white players aren't given a fair shake.

 

All of that being said, the Rooney Rule isn't just imperfect. It does the exact opposite of what it's intended to do. It demeans black coaches and makes them look weak. They should not need special rules, and having them makes them seem like children. I can't imagine this image hasn't subconsciously affected any teams' hiring decisions. 

 

  

53 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Just like Flores is suing for violations of the Rooney Rule, another coach has the right to sue if they feel they can prove this rule affected them as well. 

 

My point is that one is suing for violating the spirit of an NFL internal rule (not even the rule itself), while one is violating a federal law protected by the constitution. You can't even compare those.

[CS85]

1 hour ago, throwuascenario said:

The intent of the rule was to virtue signal

 

 

[MJWalker45]

6 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

My point is that one is suing for violating the spirit of an NFL internal rule (not even the rule itself), while one is violating a federal law protected by the constitution. You can't even compare those.

If your job has a rule that only applies to those working at that company, they can decide how to address those that violate the rules. They are comparable, just not a one for one comparison. 

[gosioux76]

40 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

All of that being said, the Rooney Rule isn't just imperfect. It does the exact opposite of what it's intended to do. It demeans black coaches and makes them look weak. They should not need special rules, and having them makes them seem like children. I can't imagine this image hasn't subconsciously affected any teams' hiring decisions. 

 

I've give you this much, we agree that this situation should not need special rules. If the hiring system was equitable to begin with, or if there was enough confidence that team owners were committed to making it so, then such rules wouldn't have been needed. 

[Indigo]

36 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

13.4% of the US is African-American. There are 3 African-American coaches in the NFL, equaling 9.4% of coaches. 4 coaches would equal 12.5%, while 5 would go over at 15.6%. So the NFL is only 1 African-American coach away from being proportionally appropriate. I don't understand why there need to be rules in place to make a change when the problem is that small. If your point is that the majority of players are black, then why isn't that the problem? If anything, that would lead you to believe that white players aren't given a fair shake.

The majority of the player base is black (57.5% to be exact), so why is it that only 13.4% of coaches (who coach the players) are black? That’s our issue. Old, white owners don’t want to put Black people in a position of power, just like other places in society.

 

”White players aren’t given a fair shake” is complete bull :censored:. Just under half of the league is white. Don’t try to twist this narrative. White players get the same opportunities as Black players; the problem is that White coaches get better/more opportunities than Black coaches.

 

 

[IceCap]

49 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

13.4% of the US is African-American. There are 3 African-American coaches in the NFL, equaling 9.4% of coaches. 4 coaches would equal 12.5%, while 5 would go over at 15.6%. So the NFL is only 1 African-American coach away from being proportionally appropriate.

Just so you know...you're using actual Nazi logic. And not in the sense of "oh you disagree with me you must be a Nazi." 
I mean "we should limit the number of minority people in a profession to their percentage of the overall population" was an actual policy of Nazi German to justify forcing Jews and others deemed "inferior" out of the professional class. 

 

So if you're going to put that argument forward... know where it comes from. 

[throwuascenario]

18 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I've give you this much, we agree that this situation should not need special rules. If the hiring system was equitable to begin with, or if there was enough confidence that team owners were committed to making it so, then such rules wouldn't have been needed. 

 

Here's an analogy for you. You walk into a bowling alley and see two people bowling. One is using bumpers and one isn't. Before you even see them bowl, which do you assume is the more skilled bowler? The same applies here. Them using the proverbial bumpers makes them look weak. Weakness is not a quality that NFL teams want in their coach.

 

16 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

The majority of the player base is black (57.5% to be exact), so why is it that only 13.4% of coaches (who coach the players) are black? That’s our issue. Old, white owners don’t want to put Black people in a position of power, just like other places in society.

 

”White players aren’t given a fair shake” is complete bull :censored:. Just under half of the league is white. Don’t try to twist this narrative. White players get the same opportunities as Black players; the problem is that White coaches get better/more opportunities than Black coaches.

 

 

 

The numbers don't support what you're saying. I don't think that white players have a lack of opportunity in the NFL. But if I had to choose, white players are obviously at a bigger disadvantage than black coaches. About 25% of players in the NFL are white, compared to 76% of the US population. That's more than a 50% difference. How is that fair?

 

Also - head coach is not a position of power any more than a star player is. If the player is good enough, the team will usually side with them if it came down to that.

 

  

9 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Just so you know...you're using actual Nazi logic. And not in the sense of "oh you disagree with me you must be a Nazi." 
I mean "we should limit the number of minority people in a profession to their percentage of the overall population" was an actual policy of Nazi German to justify forcing Jews and others deemed "inferior" out of the professional class. 

 

So if you're going to put that argument forward... know where it comes from. 

 

Aren't they trying to limit the number of white coaches though but just using the population of NFL players to justify it instead of the population of the US? How is that any different or better?

 

And I'm not saying that there should be any rules for anyone (players or coaches) regarding proportions and races. That's the Rooney Rule and its supporters doing that. I was just saying "by that logic...". Your assertion that the logic is Naziesque only proves my point.