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

[gosioux76]

57 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

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.

 

I'm sure NFL owners and general managers aren't the brightest of bulbs, but they're not complete idiots. If they really believe they're only interviewing a candidate because they have to as a result of the Rooney Rule, and that the rule inherently makes minority candidates weaker by its very existence, then they're the exact reason why there needs to be regulations in the first place. That suggests they're either unable or — more likely — unwilling to evaluate minority candidates on their merits. If they immediately assess them as lesser-than because of some administrative incumbrance, then the problem isn't with the rule  — it's with them.

 

And do you really think Black candidates haven't already been unfairly judged their entire lives? At least the Rooney Rule, as flawed as it was, got them a seat at the table.  There just apparently isn't a mechanism in place to make the people responsible for hiring decisions take it seriously. 

[IceCap]

14 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

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?

No one's trying to limit the number of white coaches, or the opportunities of white coaching candidates. 

But black coaching candidates have historically never been given a fair shake in the NFL. If they had been then stuff like the Rooney Rule wouldn't be necessary. 

 

The reverse racism card isn't handy either, because we're not dealing with a level playing field. Again, if everyone was acting in good faith and not shafting candidates based on skin colour we wouldn't be here.

But black people have a been discriminated against both legally and socially in the United States since before there even was a United States. In ways no white ethnic group ever had to struggle in this country. 

That's hundreds of years of ingrained racism and prejudice that rules like this are attempting to overcome.

 

You're coming at it from a perspective of "why should any one group get an advantage over another?" and in a society that's 100% moved beyond racial bias you'd have a point. 

But that isn't the society we live in. We live in a society where black people do experience systematic racism in ways white people just don't, and includes in the realm of the job market.

 

These rules aren't perfect, but then again nothing is. What they are attempting to do, however, is give a historically disadvantaged group a leg up when the deck is already stacked against them. 

[throwuascenario]

1 minute ago, IceCap said:

No one's trying to limit the number of white coaches, or the opportunities of white coaching candidates. 

But black coaching candidates have historically never been given a fair shake in the NFL. If they had been then stuff like the Rooney Rule wouldn't be necessary. 

 

The reverse racism card isn't handy either, because we're not dealing with a level playing field. Again, if everyone was acting in good faith and not shafting candidates based on skin colour we wouldn't be here.

But black people have a been discriminated against both legally and socially in the United States since before there even was a United States. In ways no white ethnic group ever had to struggle in this country. 

That's hundreds of years of ingrained racism and prejudice that rules like this are attempting to overcome.

 

You're coming at it from a perspective of "why should any one group get an advantage over another?" and in a society that's 100% moved beyond racial bias you'd have a point. 

But that isn't the society we live in. We live in a society where black people do experience systematic racism in ways white people just don't, and includes in the realm of the job market.

 

These rules aren't perfect, but then again nothing is. What they are attempting to do, however, is give a historically disadvantaged group a leg up when the deck is already stacked against them. 

 

Of course there's been racism in history. I'm sure there is some today.

 

But in 2022 in the NFL, black head coaching candidates are not getting an unfair shake. Or if they are, it's a very small amount. I know this because that's what the numbers say. The proportional numbers I've cited.

 

If the deck was stacked agains them, there would be nowhere near proportionally accurate representation. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more than that amount, but it certainly doesn't display an unlevel playing field.

 

If the goal was to unstack the deck, then congratulations. They have done that in the NFL. Now move on somewhere else that still needs it.

 

[IceCap]

Just now, throwuascenario said:

Of course there's been racism in history. I'm sure there is some today.

And there's the root of the issue. You seem to think we've moved beyond ingrained, systematic racism. And buddy, man...I wish that the 1964 Civil Rights Act had been the killshot to hundreds of years of bigotry and prejudice, but it wasn't. There isn't "some" racism today. It's still very prevalent in society.

 

2 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

If the deck was stacked agains them, there would be nowhere near proportionally accurate representation.

You need to move beyond "proportional employment based on race" as an argument because it's gross and disturbing, in addition to being morally vacant.

[throwuascenario]

Just now, IceCap said:

And there's the root of the issue. You seem to think we've moved beyond ingrained, systematic racism. And buddy, man...I wish that the 1964 Civil Rights Act had been the killshot to hundreds of years of bigotry and prejudice, but it wasn't. There isn't "some" racism today. It's still very prevalent in society.

 

You need to move beyond "proportional employment based on race" as an argument because it's gross and disturbing, in addition to being morally vacant.

 

I didn't say we've moved beyond anything. In fact, I said I'm sure it still exists.

 

My argument never was that there needs to be proportionally accurate employment. What I'm essentially asking is this: If there is a proportionally accurate number of African-American head coaches in the NFL (almost), then on what are you basing the fact that there exists an unlevel playing field (solely within the confines of today's NFL)? 

[IceCap]

15 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

If there is a proportionally accurate number of African-American head coaches in the NFL (almost), then on what are you basing the fact that there exists an unlevel playing field (solely within the confines of today's NFL)? 

Because the idea that a minority group's presence in a given field out to be proportional to their percentage of the overall population is a flawed and dehumanizing argument that was used by one of the most violent and destructive regimes in human history!

 

It shouldn't matter if the number of black coaches reflects overall demographics or the demographics of the NFL! You, yes you, need to get over that. Ok? Ok.

 

The only thing that should matter is the quality of the candidate for the job. Nothing else.

Yet we have seen time and time again qualified black coaching candidates getting passed over for jobs. When Eric Bieniemy and Brian Flores can't get a head coaching job but Nick Sirianni can and Josh f'ing McCown can get serious consideration there's certainly a racial bias.

[Indigo]

Just because there is a similar number of overall Black people in America and Black NFL does not mean they are equal. The numbers don’t lie, but they never tell the full story. The National Football League is run by a commissioner who needs the support of his owners, so essentially the owners hold majority of the power here. These owners are mostly older, white males who grew up in a society where if you were those two adjectives, you were considered superior to all others.  
 

Now that we have the historical context in place, you can see that the playing field has never been equal, and still isn’t. These owners don’t want to hire Black coaches, and the definitely don’t want them in their front office. They want to treat Black people like their fathers and their father’s fathers did: only as people who work for you, never to be seen as equal. Meanwhile, their white counterparts have no trouble getting whatever position they want (deserving or not).

 

Not even players are safe from this discrimination. The Denver Broncos have had 11 starting QBs since 2015, as shown here:

Quote

From Trevor Siemian to Paxton Lynch to Brock Osweiler to Case Keenum to Joe Flaccoto Brandon Allen to Drew Lock to Jeff Driskel to Brent Rypien to Teddy Bridgewater

Are you telling me that all of those players are more deserving than Colin Kaepernick of a starting spot? 

 

As my father once said “Just because racism isn’t as obvious doesn’t mean it no longer exists.”

[CS85]

47 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

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.

 

You walk into a bowling alley and you see thiry two people bowling.  Some bowlers are using bumpers, some aren't.  All bowlers are white.  Meanwhile there are several Black people waiting at the counter to get a lane, but the owner of the bowling alley keeps telling the tellers to skip to the next white person instead.

When the local newspapers get ahold of this information, they ask the bowling alley ownership why so many Black customers are getting denied entry, and the owners counter by saying they have repeatedly offered Black people jobs as custodians and shoe-cleaners at all of their alleys.

 

 

[throwuascenario]

37 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Because the idea that a minority group's presence in a given field out to be proportional to their percentage of the overall population is a flawed and dehumanizing argument that was used by one of the most violent and destructive regimes in human history!

 

It shouldn't matter if the number of black coaches reflects overall demographics or the demographics of the NFL! You, yes you, need to get over that. Ok? Ok.

 

The only thing that should matter is the quality of the candidate for the job. Nothing else.

Yet we have seen time and time again qualified black coaching candidates getting passed over for jobs. When Eric Bieniemy and Brian Flores can't get a head coaching job but Nick Sirianni can and Josh f'ing McCown can get serious consideration there's certainly a racial bias.

 

I'll rephrase it yet another way:

I'm assuming you feel that the number of black coaches in the NFL is too low. What metric brought you to that conclusion?

 

 

33 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Just because there is a similar number of overall Black people in America and Black NFL does not mean they are equal. The numbers don’t lie, but they never tell the full story. The National Football League is run by a commissioner who needs the support of his owners, so essentially the owners hold majority of the power here. These owners are mostly older, white males who grew up in a society where if you were those two adjectives, you were considered superior to all others.  
 

Now that we have the historical context in place, you can see that the playing field has never been equal, and still isn’t. These owners don’t want to hire Black coaches, and the definitely don’t want them in their front office. They want to treat Black people like their fathers and their father’s fathers did: only as people who work for you, never to be seen as equal. Meanwhile, their white counterparts have no trouble getting whatever position they want (deserving or not).

 

Not even players are safe from this discrimination. The Denver Broncos have had 11 starting QBs since 2015, as shown here:

Are you telling me that all of those players are more deserving than Colin Kaepernick of a starting spot? 

 

As my father once said “Just because racism isn’t as obvious doesn’t mean it no longer exists.”

 

I get it. All rich white males think that blacks are beneath them and behave uniformly as such. Therefore, there should be too few black coaches because all the owners are obviously racists. No matter how many there are in actuality. 

 

And you're giving a false equivalency with the Broncos. Just because all those players started a game, doesn't mean they were brought in as starters. Many of them were brought in as backups, something Kaepernick refused to do with the very same team. All of the players they brought in with the intent to start (the only way Kaepernick would've signed with them) are better than him, yes.

 

31 minutes ago, CS85 said:

 

You walk into a bowling alley and you see thiry two people bowling.  Some bowlers are using bumpers, some aren't.  All bowlers are white.  Meanwhile there are several Black people waiting at the counter to get a lane, but the owner of the bowling alley keeps telling the tellers to skip to the next white person instead.

When the local newspapers get ahold of this information, they ask the bowling alley ownership why so many Black customers are getting denied entry, and the owners counter by saying they have repeatedly offered Black people jobs as custodians and shoe-cleaners at all of their alleys.

 

 

 

First of all, all the bowlers wouldn't be white. 9% of them would be black. And all of the people waiting at the counter wouldn't be black, as the overall population is over 70% white. So it's a good analogy but definitely flawed.

[IceCap]

Just now, throwuascenario said:

I'll rephrase it yet another way:

I'm assuming you feel that the number of black coaches in the NFL is too low. What metric brought you to that conclusion?

You're still hung up on numbers. It's not about numbers or hitting a quota, because I'm not so callous as to dehumanize human beings by reducing them to spreadsheet data points.

 

It's not about numbers, it's about the fact that there are qualified black coaching candidates out there who aren't getting jobs because of ingrained racial biases among NFL ownership. I'm not looking to hit a magic number. I'm looking to get to a point where clearly qualified black coaches aren't passed over for jobs for Old Boy's Club reasons.

[throwuascenario]

1 minute ago, IceCap said:

You're still hung up on numbers. It's not about numbers or hitting a quota, because I'm not so callous as to dehumanize human beings by reducing them to spreadsheet data points.

 

It's not about numbers, it's about the fact that there are qualified black coaching candidates out there who aren't getting jobs because of ingrained racial biases among NFL ownership. I'm not looking to hit a magic number. I'm looking to get to a point where clearly qualified black coaches aren't passed over for jobs for Old Boy's Club reasons.

 

Dan Quinn is more qualified than either of the coaches you mentioned and also didn't get hired this year. Flores also did get hired to the Dolphins, and has only had an issue getting a new job in the time that he's actively been engaged in a lawsuit against the NFL. You don't think those things would have any correlation?

 

Kellen Moore is also very analogous to Bieniemy and hasn't been hired either. Lots of coaches of all races get passed over because there are only so many jobs to go around. There is quite literally zero evidence of race having any effect on hiring either.

 

The point that you're looking to get to will never exist because it's so unclearly defined. You will always think the owners are an old boy's club (your opinion) and you'll always think that some black coaches are the most qualified (your opinion) but will never get hired because of their race (no evidence to support this, so your opinion). Your opinion will never change. Because the problem is so abstract and subject, there's no possible solution that will placate you. Which is why I said they should stop feeding the mob, because it will never be satisfied.

[CS85]

This is all becoming a big jerkoff. 

[officeglenn]

Alright, moderator stepping in here. We've gone around in circles for the past page and a half or so, and it's clear no one's mind is going to be changed about the Flores lawsuit and the issues surrounding it. 

 

Time to drop the subject, cool off, and move on to other matters.  

[Red Comet]

In less controversial news, the Commanders should be renamed the Stealers apparently. Headline really buries the lede because it’s alleged Dan Snyder withheld ticket revenue from visiting teams and ripped off fans. 
 

Here is the official document with the allegations

Edited April 13, 2022 by Red Comet

[rams80]

10 hours 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.

1.  St. Louis operated in as much bad faith with the relocation saga as the Rams did, but that wasn't germane to the lawsuit (to whit: somehow we went from "lease requires city to build a replacement stadium with civic money if it doesn't hit certain benchmarks" to "city will generously let Stan Kroenke spend his own money to build a cheap open air stadium in a blighted floodplain/swamp."

2.  St. Louis did not spend nearly that much money/commit that much in civic assets on the stadium; the damages were calculated off of the losses of future civic revenue from having the Rams in town, which, St. Louis' attorneys did really well on the deception check they rolled at advantage.

 

Anyway, Flores acted in good faith in trying to get a job, unlike both parties in the Rams vs. St. Louis, so let's drop this analogy.

[MJWalker45]

13 hours ago, Red Comet said:

In less controversial news, the Commanders should be renamed the Stealers apparently. Headline really buries the lede because it’s alleged Dan Snyder withheld ticket revenue from visiting teams and ripped off fans. 
 

Here is the official document with the allegations

I wonder how many other teams may be doing the same thing, but they will possibly use this as the thing that gets rid of an owner who's probably making the other 31 nervous about Congress peeking into their portfolios as well. The fact he'll be asked to go away and get a gift of around $4-5 billion dollars will soften the blow I'm sure. 

[Red Comet]

On 4/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, MJWalker45 said:

I wonder how many other teams may be doing the same thing, but they will possibly use this as the thing that gets rid of an owner who's probably making the other 31 nervous about Congress peeking into their portfolios as well. The fact he'll be asked to go away and get a gift of around $4-5 billion dollars will soften the blow I'm sure. 

Probably. But I’m sure it’ll be fine. After all, rich people don’t mind it at all when you steal money from them. 
 

Spoiler

He’s :censored:ed

 

[tBBP]

Not sure whether to put this in the Relocation Roundelay thread or this one,  so for mods, if you feel this fits better in the other thread, go for it.

 

Anyway, some movement on the new venue front in Nashville...as figured, they're looking at building the new place in the parking lot of the current one. According to the rendering, *oh but of course* the new stadium will be surrounded by new office towers, luxury condos, and other *fancy* stuff, which will completely cut off the new stadium from whatever green space not to mention future parking space the new stadium could have/would need.

 

At any rate, the most interesting part of the story is that the state and the Adams family (ha--there's a pun if ever there was one) appear to be kicking in most of the ends for it, to the tune of 1.2B between the two.  (Of course, saying "the state" is another way of saying that in some way shape or form the people of the state will end up chipping in, but that's another discussion.)

 

https://titanswire.usatoday.com/2022/04/16/tennessee-titans-new-stadium-conceptual-design/

[MJWalker45]

Is it retractable or a dome? 

[tBBP]

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Is it retractable or a dome? 

 

From all what I saw it'll be enclosed.