NFL to present new resolutions to Rooney Rule, which includes draft-related incentives (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

Boy, you sure would think so, right?

Then again, the micro cluster of posters who seem to be in support of this openly admitted flawed proposal because, you know, "A for effort!" also seem to be some of the same posters who primarily show up in threads focused on social issues rather than threads about actual football.

this seems like a 'Three Year Letterman' tweet but without realizing it's satire

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Well, it's widely known at this point that Patrick Mahomes would have been a Saint if we had just picked 10th instead of 11th in 2017. So there's that. Lattimore is a great player, but he'll never be league MVP.

Oh that's right, we're talking about picks later than the 1st round, my bad.

How about in 2000, when we were one pick away from having the rights to Tom Brady, only to see New England snag him at 199. Instead, we had to settle for Sherrod Gideon at pick 200. Is that sussed out well enough for you?

And by the way, when we were docked 2nd round picks after the sham that was Bountygate, the rest of the teams in the league absolutely benefitted from our punishment. Not only did everyone slotted behind us have the benefit of making their selection one choice earlier, we faced every NFL team over the next four years with one less 2nd round pick on our roster. Did that really need to be explained, or are you just trolling?

your example points out how much the draft is about luck and unforeseen circumstances - to paraphrase SP, if the Pats had realized Tom Brady was going to be Tom Brady they select him first - it is NOT an example of foresight
PRE-DRAFT picking at 79 or 80 is going to have ZERO impact on draft prep and completely unforeseen impacts during the draft - for every Mahomes/Lattimore there is a Foster/Ramczyk

when we got to pick in the 2nd round again, we selected Stanley Jean Baptiste - so clearly having/not having a 2nd round (or any round pick) is not a zero-sum game no matter how hard y'all try to round that peg

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

i've pointed it out a few times, but coaches v players is a bad comparison bc players compete against each other in game/game-like situations all of the time - and if everyone sat and looked at the same data most would agree with who was kept on the team and who was cut

otoh, coaches are selected - there is no direct competition - nor is their impact discernable since they do not make any plays
coaching hires are endlessly subjective

You forgot about (arguably), the most gifted athlete of the 20th century; Jim Thorpe.

So is the real point of contention about the lack of blacks in coaching and management, or is it a lack of racial diversity, including all races that are not white? Why is it we do not have more whites on rosters? After all, whites make up a larger portion of the population. It ever ends. No one group of people will ever be satisfied. People can look at all sorts of angles for their point of contention.

My philosohy is; “I don’t give a rat’s butt about any diversity, one way, or the other when it cones to winning. I pay for my season tickets and expect the Saints to field the best team and organization possible to WIN and win regularly, without concern for race. Last time I looked at the Saints roster, it was a vast majority of black players. So freaking what?”

i know i'm not going to convert you, but your philosophy is not super-strong
diverse cultures will almost always be more advantageous than momo-cultures
we hear all the time that the NFL is a 'copycat' league and it's because everyone is reading from the same playbook -that's a recipe for mediocrity
but let's test your hypothesis
since you have the opinion that diversity should not matter, can you point to instances where addressing diversity negatively impacted that situation it was placed into?

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

I have some discomfort with this proposal. Two prefatory points. First, the NFL is obsessed with public relations, with brand, with perceptions. The fight against breast cancer and support for those who serve or served in the military (and these days, for so many in public service) are admirable, but I dislike the players wearing pink shoes and coaches wearing military apparel. If the league wishes to show support, it can donate money, but donations, especially if quietly done, don't create the public-relations stir that the NFL craves. And second, most head coaches and general managers did not play in the NFL--I count only six head coaches who truly played in the league with so many top coaches beginning their coaching careers immediately after college. What percentage of minority head coaches and general managers does the league consider ideal?

My reasons for my discomfort:

First, any policy that gives those in particular minority categories an advantage necessarily places all others at a disadvantage. This is a form of affirmative action. A coaching candidate passed over who decides to sue the league will surely be black-balled, but eventually someone in a conservative jurisdiction will challenge the constitutionality of such a policy.

Second, any such policy will burden minority candidates hired with the question of whether they were hired because they were the superior candidate or because of the league incentive of draft picks to the hiring team.

Third, it seems that the number of minority persons in professional and graduate schools, and thus in the professions and higher education and at the higher levels of business, is a much more important social objective than the number of minority persons standing on football sidelines on Sunday. Let the league create scholarship programs to increase the number of minority students in professional and graduate programs.

Fourth, one way--and I think a fairer and better way--to increase the number of minority persons on NFL coaching staffs and in front offices is to create or enhance internship programs for minorities.

Fifth, such a high-profile policy, if passed, will exacerbate the political divisions in this country in a critical presidential-election year.

Sixth, to achieve whatever the NFL is trying to achieve, a much more effective way would be for Roger Goddell to step down with a minority person being named his successor. Roger, are you game?

 

[parlorcitysaint]

If I took $100 from A and gave it to B, then it’s just as bad if I take that $100 dollars and try to give it back to A

That’s quite the argument you have there

Also it seems that there is no reason to try to understand why I took the money fromA in the first place and any attempt to correct that s so so so unfair

And Also Also I’m an A and feel a certain way about someone trying to get back the money that was taken from me

That was quite a ride

My argument boiled the situation down to its core. Compared apples to apples, as it were.

You're trying to argue reparations and "white privilege".

Wrong is wrong.

Discrimination is wrong. Whether to the detriment of people of color, or ANYONE ELSE. It's wrong.

Let's at least agree to argue about the same thing.

 

[RazorOye]

Compared apples to apples, as it were.

Discrimination is wrong. Whether to the detriment of people of color, or ANYONE ELSE. It's wrong.

Let's at least agree to argue about the same thing.

You're not talking apples to apples, though. And yours is even further from apples to apples than his. Just as the metaphor before was overly simplistic, so too is your analogy.

Discrimination isn't always wrong. Our progressive tax structure is (ideally) discriminatory. To put the burden on those who have more and ease the burden on less.

What you are arguing is a 'flat tax' approach.

If we are talking about racism, then saying discrimination against whites and discrimination against blacks is the *same* is incorrect. And that's what you are arguing. All discrimination is equally wrong because all burden is shared equally across demographics.

We make these decisions all the time. We give poorer kids and families more support for postsecondary education, as another example. I know this, as a recipient of such support.

Students with special needs get more support in school. Poorer families and small- and medium-business owners were the recipients of more help from the stimulus package. Medicare and Medicaid are for people who cannot work and get insured through employment or can't afford it. Offering scholarships and programming for girls in STEM. Public transportation. There's a ton of them.

In fact, I would argue that the very foundation of the United States - in many ways - is (at least idealistically) about identifying people who need help and setting about helping them - to try and equalize opportunity (not outcomes).

Is it wrong for a grant to give a poor kids $5,000 to go to university but deny access to that $5,000 to the child of a billionaire?

I would say no, personally.

Maybe you'd answer differently.

But when you talk about 'privilege' you seem not to realize that your very position to have this opinion is privileged. All discrimination is the same and therefore showing extra support to A over B or B over A is, therefore, wrong.

 

[Loose Cannon]

What's funny is the NFL is never going to do this. This is just like the pass interference review. They'll float it out, everyone will hate it, and they will back off and go "woah, we didn't know everyone would be so offended". And they'll still get "points" for the attempt.

Just another way for the NFL to stay relevant in the offseason.

But this thread has been great at rooting out and exposing some racist morons who I can safely ignore and disregard all of their opinions going forward, so it's not all bad.

 

[parlorcitysaint]

You're not talking apples to apples, though. And yours is even further from apples to apples than his. Just as the metaphor before was overly simplistic, so too is your analogy.

Discrimination isn't always wrong. Our progressive tax structure is (ideally) discriminatory. To put the burden on those who have more and ease the burden on less.

What you are arguing is a 'flat tax' approach.

If we are talking about racism, then saying discrimination against whites and discrimination against blacks is the *same* is incorrect. And that's what you are arguing. All discrimination is equally wrong because all burden is shared equally across demographics.

We make these decisions all the time. We give poorer kids and families more support for postsecondary education, as another example. I know this, as a recipient of such support.

Students with special needs get more support in school. Poorer families and small- and medium-business owners were the recipients of more help from the stimulus package. Medicare and Medicaid are for people who cannot work and get insured through employment or can't afford it. Offering scholarships and programming for girls in STEM. Public transportation. There's a ton of them.

In fact, I would argue that the very foundation of the United States - in many ways - is (at least idealistically) about identifying people who need help and setting about helping them - to try and equalize opportunity (not outcomes).

Is it wrong for a grant to give a poor kids $5,000 to go to university but deny access to that $5,000 to the child of a billionaire?

I would say no, personally.

Maybe you'd answer differently.

But when you talk about 'privilege' you seem not to realize that your very position to have this opinion is privileged. All discrimination is the same and therefore showing extra support to A over B or B over A is, therefore, wrong.

Life is gray, and your position seems to be arguing shades of it.

I'm a machinist, because my "white privilege" never allowed me to go to college. I've worked my backside off, caring for my family and ensuring they had a roof, food, and clothing, but that's beside the point. As a machinist, my job is literally black and white. As in blue prints. Schematics. It's within tolerance or it's not. It's a good part or it's not. It will work, or it won't. There's no gray.

It's through these eyes and this mindset that I view most issues, when so many wish to argue the "gray areas" of life.

Racism, in whatever form, whether it's the KKK terrorizing people of color or Affirmative Action denying a qualified candidate a position because of their race , is wrong.

Injustice is injustice, even if it "makes up" for wrongs done in the past.

 

[RazorOye]

I'm a machinist, because my "white privilege" never allowed me to go to college. I've worked my backside off, caring for my family and ensuring they had a roof, food, and clothing, but that's beside the point.

It's through these eyes and this mindset that I view most issues, when so many wish to argue the "gray areas" of life.

And I grew up the son of a day laborer. And we grew up in a crappy neighborhood, where we were the 'ethnic' minority as white people. We had 4 kids and 2 parents in a 2-BR house on blocks, with no central air or insulation.

Did I live a life of "privilege"? No. But did i have advantages from being white. I didn't have to think about interactions with cops. But I was still poor. Was I stopped in the mall nearby for theft when I didn't steal? No. Was my mom ever second guessed for writing a check at the grocery store? Nope. But I saw a lot of black kids experience that - same neighborhood, same social class. Very different treatment.

Your ability to say 'gray doesn't exist' and 'I only focus on the black and white' *is* a position of privilege. You haven't had to deal with it, so you decide that it doesn't exist.

You are free to do that - but it doesn't mean that gray doesn't exist in the world. In *your* world you might be able to ignore it. But tens of MILLIONS of people live in the gray and don't have the choice to be heterosexual. They don't have the choice to be white. They don't have the choice to be rich. They don't have the choice to be male. And so on.

Your position is easy, even though your life is hard. So was mine. I worked like a dog - more than one job for a number of summers and years - to help out. Built our own house in a decent school zone so that I wasn't going to be the only white kid at my high school.

Having some privileges over other people =/= living a life of privilege.

Injustice is injustice, even if it "makes up" for wrongs done in the past.

not all injustices are created equally. To you, they are. Black and white. It's unjust or it's not.

Again, you may not be aware of it, but to even be able to live day to day outside the gray is absolutely a privilege. But that doesn't mean you live in a mansion or have someone drive you around in a Bentley.

Seeing black and white prohibits that awareness. It's only life in grayscale, and it exists for millions whether you decide to deny it or not.

 

[BigFrosty]

I counter propose that your team is exempt from the play abroad list, you don't have to be on Hard Knocks, and Madden can't put your star player on it's cover.

 

[Saint Greg]

I don't think this would be effective because if an owner or gm isn't helping their team in the first place by hiring the best person for the job, I don't think better draft position is going to be a good enough incentive for them. I think a lot of this will work itself out over time. Right now it feels like most of the coaches being hired are offensive and it seems like most offensive coaches are former quarterbacks. Since the number of african american quarterbacks in the NFL has increased, as they retire and get into coaching I think we'll see the numbers go up. I think Eric Bieniemy will absolutely be one of the next NFL head coaches. I think the Saints can do their part by finding a way to get Curtis Johnson more involved than just a receivers coach. If Dan Campbell gets hired away, make CJ assistant head coach. I think the NFL would be better off looking at each individual team in that way and seeing what they can do to put minority coaches in a better position to get promoted.

 

[gavinj]

I saw where one of the new rules would award a compensatory 3rd round pick to a team that loses an employee who goes on to be a minority head coach or GM somewhere else.

Terry Fontenot is going to be hired as a GM somewhere sooner rather than later imo. So that would mean a 3rd round pick for us.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I saw where one of the new rules would award a compensatory 3rd round pick to a team that loses an employee who goes on to be a minority head coach or GM somewhere else.

See, I like this a lot. Because one of the problems, as others have mentioned, is that the feeder pools for head coaches lack qualified minority candidates. This could encourage teams to hire and develop more PoC coaches at the lower levels, which in theory would trickle up to the head coach ranks eventually.

It's similar to the situation with black quarterbacks. Over the last 10-12 years you've seen a couple of black quarterbacks who have succeeded with the right coaching around them in the NFL. More importantly, those players inspired young black athletes to aspire to play QB, and the smart coaches realized that there are talented guys who are capable of playing the QB position. So in the last decade you've seen many more black starting QBs at the high school and college level. Of course that eventually made its way to the NFL, which is a copycat league. And now in 2020, the "elite tier" of NFL QBs includes four black guys and Drew Brees.

So anything the NFL can do to build up the downstream talent pool of minority position coaches, the more likely it is that we'll see PoC in head coach roles in the near future.

 

[Saint Greg]

I saw where one of the new rules would award a compensatory 3rd round pick to a team that loses an employee who goes on to be a minority head coach or GM somewhere else.

Terry Fontenot is going to be hired as a GM somewhere sooner rather than later imo. So that would mean a 3rd round pick for us.

This I would be okay with. This isn't giving a team incentive to hire a coach but it's giving them incentive to put their people in position to get hired by other teams. Like I was saying in my previous post. When Dan Campbell gets hired away make CJ assistant head coach. He's certainly qualified after being HC at Tulane.

 

[parlorcitysaint]

Discrimination isn't always wrong.

And therein is the difference in our positions.

I assert that in no circumstances is discrimination acceptable, and you believe that given the proper situation, it is.

At that point the circumstances become entirely subjective, and therefore suspect.

Wrong is wrong, and your arguing otherwise is subjective upon condition.