superpunk said:
I don't know the full reason they hired him, but that was one that was brought up. None of us know the full reason. Jim Bates should have gotten that job, but they obviously wanted someone to work with Rodgers. Where's the uproar about old, defensive coaches like Jim Johnson and Jim Bates not getting a HC look? Is it because they're old? Because their name is Jim?
An NFL owner is going to hire the man he is most comfortable with. This man is going to be the face of the franchise. It's their millions they're putting up, let them hire who they want. They're not going to hire a white man, if they think a black man would be a better choice. They're doing what they think is best for their organization, and that is their right.
In your first paragraph you raise speculations/questions.
In your second paragraph you make declarations. "They're not going to hire a white man, if they think a black man would be a better choice."
How do you know this?
Here's the problem with racial insensitivity (and I don't want to use the word "racism" because that implies malice), many whites don't know that they're engaged in it.
It's easy to overlook people, things if your experience doesn't encompass those people, things.
It's easy not to "think" that a black candidate will be a good head coach for your team if the only well you've drawn from is the white well, so to speak.
That's the purpose of the Rooney rule. People sometimes unintentionally/subconsciously follow and do things the way they've always done it, and sometimes someone needs to introduce them to a new way of doing things that they may not have considered previously.