Jimmuh was reportedly offered the Texans HC job

[Rush 2112]

Saw a piece on Marshall once. Their was a reporter back in the day who said any idiot knows who to pick in he draft. Marshall let him call the shots on the final round pick. Knowing Marshall was the most racist man alive the reporter intentionally drafted a "black player". When Marshall "found out" he was black he traded him sight unseen. Turns out they were both wrong. Dude was white.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Saw a piece on Marshall once. Their was a reporter back in the day who said any idiot knows who to pick in he draft. Marshall let him call the shots on the final round pick. Knowing Marshall was the most racist man alive the reporter intentionally drafted a "black player". When Marshall "found out" he was black he traded him sight unseen. Turns out they were both wrong. Dude was white.

Yep, I was over at Thehogs.net about a year ago and they were saying that the guy had a change of heart later on in his life.

Not sure

- Mike G.

 

[Rush 2112]

Yep, I was over at Thehogs.net about a year ago and they were saying that the guy had a change of heart later on in his life.

Not sure

- Mike G.

From what I've heard he didn't.

Was in his will that none of his money should go to any charitable organizations that help "negroes".

 

[Shotgun Dave]

My knowledge of football did not begin in 1990. Yes, I am well aware that many black players were moved from QB to WR. I am also aware that a black QB has LONG AGO won a Super Bowl. Some of the highest regarded players on the o-line are black, and several of the highest regarded QB's are also black (Culpepper, McNabb, Leftwich).

Black Head Coaches have proven they can get it done in the NFL. IMO, that's all that needed to be done. At this point, any owner who doesn't interview the best qualified candidate because he happens to be black is doing so at his own peril and deserves whatever lousy record awaits him.

But it is no longer true TODAY. That is my point. I totally acknowledge that it used to be different. Heck, slavery was legal in this country at one point. It's not anymore. I guess that is what irks me about this is there never seems to be an end to the claims of racism in this country. I occasionally hear demands for reparations for blacks over the slavery issue - and that completely blows my mind.

I am totally not a racist person. At some point, however, people of all races must say, "OK. We're getting all sorts of legal protection to insure more than equal opportunities. Enough griping."

As for the "shame" of interviewing, you missed my point entirely. If a black head coaching candidate who was extremely well-qualified was brought in to interview for a position because he was viewed as a viable candidate was turned down (for whatever reason), it would be a shame if that candidate left the interview thinking that perhaps he was simply interviewed because he is black and served the purpose of meeting some stupid "Rooney Rule". THAT would be a shame, because he was brought in based on his QUALIFICIATIONS.

As it should be.

 

[AbeBeta]

Though I agree with Dave that qualifications ideally are the best factor for decision making regarding who is interviewed and who is hired, I think he misses something vital. There is no "gold standard" measure of coaching qualification (or qualifications in most fields). To assume that you can evaluate guys in a fair manner without any clear measure of quality allows biases to influence decisions. As La Tuna pointed out so clearly, comfort plays a huge role -- when evaluations are subjective folks tend to favor those people who are more similar to themselves (and there is a ton of scientific data on this -- data that was highly influential in the Michigan case). You have to give "extra credit" to even these issues out -- is that the best option? No. Would it be great if everything could truly be based on quality? Yes. But quality is totally subjective and subjective measures are often unfair and influenced by issues other than quality. In the NFL coaching ranks, a minority candidate must be interviewed. All you are doing is requiring consideration -- to balance out the realization that 'quality' can be adequately measured.

 

[jterrell]

Here's the thing...

Will we ever (and I mean "we" as in "our culture") ever truly achieve equality if we're artificially granting a leg up to certain people because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc?

I'm all for equality, but I believe we do a diservice to everyone when we say, for example, that minority (ie, black) candidates get "extra credit" for being black and thus are given preferred treatment over others - as happened at Michigan Law.

I know if I was going up for a promotion and I was getting a leg up because I was (whatever) I would always wonder in the back of my mind if I was as good as the competition. I think guys like Dungy (and guys like Art Shell before him) have proven that black coaches are in no way less competent than white coaches. Some rule requiring owners to interview black HC candidates is not likely to help, IMO. What happens when a coach that is truly qualified interviews and is not hired in favor of a white coach? Will he think he just got the interview because he's black? He might, and that would be a shame.

I say let the best man win. Owners these days don't care what race the HC is - they want the best man for the job.

I will grant you, however, that racism used to be a serious problem. i just don't see it anymore. I really don't. Maybe I'm around enlightened people, but I don't see it.

Lets remove racism from the equation altogether and just talk of infusing new blood into the sport. By forcing owners to actually interview some people they might not have already they are putting those names out there and elevating their chances. Guys are getting jobs now and being considered for others. Carthon will get some interviews as did Crennel.

In the end I think there are black as well as white assistant coaches who deserve a shot over a retread like Capers who has failed twice now. But its almost always the retreads because owners are familiar with them.

In my field of work(IT) we have the same issues. You really need to leave your company and go elsewhere to get promotions of significance. Few companies will give you a chance to do something you aren't already doing unless they are hiring you away from someone else. I would LOVE to work for a company that forced internal interviewing. In a way I do and while many of the good ole boys managers only give it lip service it still allows me to interview for positions I want and get comfortable with the type of questions so if I do interview again with another company. It also allows folks to see that I have the motivation to climb the corporate ladder.

At the same time I would never feel threatened that my company had to interview at least one minority candidate as I feel confident in my ability to compete with others. I just want that chance to compete and believe it should be a meritocracy not rampant cronyism.

The problem with the popular view that we should just make everything is equal is that you can't allow a guy to get hit in the knees for years then all of a sudden say ok no more knee hitting lets just race fair and square. That accumulated hindrance is not all of a sudden removed just because we want to be fair going forward.

 

[dools]

Actually he can. He can hire who he wants and interview who he wants.

However, the league can fine him a considerable amount of money for not following the rules.

Hell, if I had my druthers, I'd be walking down the street smoking a big fat doobie everyday -- certainly that is "my right!!!" isn't it. Of course, there are penalties for exerting "rights!!!" that break rules.

There is a difference between "right" and "ability." No you do not have the right to walk down the street smoking a big, fat, doobie.

 

[Shotgun Dave]

Though I agree with Dave that qualifications ideally are the best factor for decision making regarding who is interviewed and who is hired, I think he misses something vital. There is no "gold standard" measure of coaching qualification (or qualifications in most fields). To assume that you can evaluate guys in a fair manner without any clear measure of quality allows biases to influence decisions. As La Tuna pointed out so clearly, comfort plays a huge role -- when evaluations are subjective folks tend to favor those people who are more similar to themselves (and there is a ton of scientific data on this -- data that was highly influential in the Michigan case). You have to give "extra credit" to even these issues out -- is that the best option? No. Would it be great if everything could truly be based on quality? Yes. But quality is totally subjective and subjective measures are often unfair and influenced by issues other than quality. In the NFL coaching ranks, a minority candidate must be interviewed. All you are doing is requiring consideration -- to balance out the realization that 'quality' can be adequately measured.

I see your point about "comfort" playing a big role, and I agree it's a factor. But I also believe there are clear standards that define a "qualified" candidate - win/loss record, years of experience, breadth of experience, etc. In recent years, I haven't seen any black candidates that deserved a shot not really getting it. How many black HC's are there in the NFL now anyway? At least 4 or 5, right? I'm certain that number will increase. I will be surprised - genuinely surprised - if it has anything to do with the "Rooney Rule". Maybe I'm wrong. I don't see the rule as any great evil, mind you, I just think it's in place so that the league can look PC.

And I'm sick-to-freaking-death of everything being so PC.

I understand your point though, and I respect that we can have a civil discussion about it. It just goes to show how classy Cowboys' fans really are.

 

[jay cee]

Let's consider this for a second. Why would a (supposedly racist) HC start black players at certain positions and not others? Did the coaches racism disappear when deciding who to play on the o-line or QB? Of course not. Such a statement only supports the fact that racism doesn't exist when someone is focused on putting the best players on the field. Racism doesn't apply only here and there. It's constant or it isn't.

Why do people insist that everything and everyone is racist? it simply isn't so.

I know you know better than that. You can't change history.

 

[Shotgun Dave]

I know you know better than that. You can't change history.

Exactly. You can't change HISTORY!

If I got beaten up as a 12 year old does that mean I'm a lightweight now? You wouldn't think so if you saw me. Things change...that's the point everyone seems to be missing. For the last time, I totally agree that racism was a problem in the past and, to a much lesser degree and only in isolated cases, still is. I'm not arguing racism didn't exist EVER.

I just do not see it now, there are about a million laws to protect against it, and we'll never get past it as a culture until people can accept that stain on our history, see that things are far better today, and simply move on.

Constantly asking for special treatment from a culture that has done so much to make amends for and improve upon the conditions under which minorities had to struggle becomes - after a while - a real point of irritation.

To me, it's like if you once cheated on your wife and then came clean...and for the next 50 years of your life together she beat you down in public about what a jerk you are. After a while you'd just say "screw it. I'm outta here".

When will it ever be enough? We can never have true equality without TRUE EQUALITY.

 

[jay cee]

Exactly. You can't change HISTORY!

If I got beaten up as a 12 year old does that mean I'm a lightweight now? You wouldn't think so if you saw me. Things change...that's the point everyone seems to be missing. For the last time, I totally agree that racism was a problem in the past and, to a much lesser degree and only in isolated cases, still is. I'm not arguing racism didn't exist EVER.

I just do not see it now, there are about a million laws to protect against it, and we'll never get past it as a culture until people can accept that stain on our history, see that things are far better today, and simply move on.

Constantly asking for special treatment from a culture that has done so much to make amends for and improve upon the conditions under which minorities had to struggle becomes - after a while - a real point of irritation.

To me, it's like if you once cheated on your wife and then came clean...and for the next 50 years of your life together she beat you down in public about what a jerk you are. After a while you'd just say "screw it. I'm outta here".

When will it ever be enough? We can never have true equality without TRUE EQUALITY.

I can honestly say that I don't know what you are talking about. I thought you were saying that no coaches had ever decided not use black players at the QB or O-line positions, while using them at the positions that require speed, like DB, running back and WR.

That's why I was saying that I know you know better than that.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

I can honestly say that I don't know what you are talking about. I thought you were saying that no coaches had ever decided not use black players at the QB or O-line positions, while using them at the positions that require speed, like DB, running back and WR.

That's why I was saying that I know you know better than that.

That was HISTORY... that is not the case now. One other thing I should address... and then I'm done with this subject. LTN, you yourself made one of the most overtly outlandish statements earlier... when you said that the black football players dominate the sport because of "merit" while the white coaches dominate because of "the vestiges of overt discrimination." Can the same be said about the white front office guy who has earned his spot on "merit"? Should that same "merit" apply to a guy like Ozzie Newsome, the front office guy in Baltimore since that franchise is floundering? Come on, you can't say that EVERYTHING a black man has is earned and everything a white man has has been given to him as a result of discrimination. That is ridiculous and inflammatory. Whether you are only talking about coaching or front office jobs in the NFL or about the country as a whole, that is a pretty ignorant statement to make... That you picked that low-hanging fruit and decided to take a huge bite out of it really surprised me.