Mike Singletary

[Bleu Star]

#1 - Ron Rivera

#2 - Mike Singletary

Mike will be a good HC in the league one day. I would rather not take an immediate chance on him if Ron is more than willing to come aboard in a couple of weeks. However, if we get shunned by Ron I hope Jerry goes full tilt for Mike. It's a pipe dream but I will enjoy it while I can.

 

[Rack]

Because Al Davis loves offensive head coaches. He's not going to hire a defensive coach if its Vince Lombardi.

Mike Nolan is a career defensive coordinator who knows defenses and has coached with Singletary in two different stints. He doesn't think he's ready to be a coordinator. But he's ready to be a head coach? There is a reason why great players often don't become great coaches ... they don't have the organizational skills, the teaching skills or the attention to detail necessary for the job. Head Coach, in essence, is like any other management position. These are necessary requirements. Its not about half time speeches.

Lombardi was an offensive Coordinator before he became an HC.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Poor argument Bleu. The first time Columbus landed on Plymouth rock no one wrote: "FIRST WHITE GUY LANDS ON PLYMOUTH ROCK".

Your right. Probably a couple of good reasons for that.

First, Columbus was Italian. He was born in Genoa Italy. You ever been there? I doubt they would call themselves "WHITE GUYS".


Second, Columbus landed in the Bohomas. San Salvador I think but not for sure.

Lastly, Plymouth Rock is in Massachusetts. The Pilgrams landed there and they sailed on the Mayflower in 1620. That's some 128 odd years later.

Who was it that said History isn't important?

:laugh2:

OK then.

 

[Bleu Star]

Your right. Probably a couple of good reasons for that.

First, Columbus was Italian. He was born in Genoa Italy. You ever been there? I doubt they would call themselves "WHITE GUYS".


Second, Columbus landed in the Bohomas. San Salvador I think but not for sure.

Lastly, Plymouth Rock is in Massachusetts. The Pilgrams landed there and they sailed on the Mayflower in 1620. That's some 128 odd years later.

Who was it that said History isn't important?

:laugh2:

OK then.

exactly.

 

[Gaede]

If Steve Nash was the first white guy to get back to back MVPs (obviously the answer is no), I would hope that they wouldn't bring the fact in that he was white if he was the first. It goes both ways. You know as well as I do that its not just that simple that history dictates they were the first. All the media is doing is selling the story that blacks are coming around blah blah blah. The quarterback position is now being filled by black people. Who cares? This isn't a Crayola world unless people make it out to be.

Why dont you write a record book then of every first person of every race who did their thing first. It should be accomplished according to the first man to ................ not the first Black or White or whatever color. The minute someone brings the word black or white into a record creates separation.

It only creates separation if you let it. The terms black or white do not imply anything--rather, people infer meaning. That is to say, the terms aren't inherently divisive, rather, people are. What matters is your use of the term, not the term itself. In this case, I don't care what the media is saying or what you think they are saying. Dungy and Lovie are the first black head coaches in the super bowl. The term 'black' in the bolded statement does not imply anything here--it is only a fact. Now, your problem seems to be with how people use the term (and you may be perfectly right to argue this, truth is, I really don't care) but that shouldn't preclude us from mentioning it--because it is, after all, simply a fact, nothing else.

 

[Route 66]

Your right. Probably a couple of good reasons for that.

First, Columbus was Italian. He was born in Genoa Italy. You ever been there? I doubt they would call themselves "WHITE GUYS".


Second, Columbus landed in the Bohomas. San Salvador I think but not for sure.

Lastly, Plymouth Rock is in Massachusetts. The Pilgrams landed there and they sailed on the Mayflower in 1620. That's some 128 odd years later.

Who was it that said History isn't important?

:laugh2:

OK then.

Oh please. You misconstrued my entire post. I used the other poster's example and wasn't looking for accuracy but rather making a statement and that statement was to prove how stupid it would have been to state that the first WHITE GUY or BLACK GUY ___________ fill in the blank here. I am not familiar with the land called Bohomas. Enlighten me.

As far as I am concerned, the native americans were quite happy with "discovering" this continent way before the "Italian Stallion" did. History is important but to whom? It is important to each and every person in his or her own way. Evel Kneivel didnt make the headlines as being the first white guy to jump an obstacle so many feet. The same goes for other aspects of history. What race someone was while doing whatever is not of importance. It is what the provided to humanity. Louis Pasteur could have been Caucasian or he could have been another race, who cares? The same goes for Isaac Newton. Im sure he wasnt remembered for his race.

 

[Bleu Star]

It seems to me that this moment in history has more significance than I initially thought. This is apparent by how roused it has some people. Some of us will sit back and enjoy this moment in history while others will throw salad at the screen.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh please. You misconstrued my entire post. I used the other poster's example and wasn't looking for accuracy but rather making a statement and that statement was to prove how stupid it would have been to state that the first WHITE GUY or BLACK GUY ___________ fill in the blank here. I am not familiar with the land called Bohomas. Enlighten me.

As far as I am concerned, the native americans were quite happy with "discovering" this continent way before the "Italian Stallion" did. History is important but to whom? It is important to each and every person in his or her own way. Evel Kneivel didnt make the headlines as being the first white guy to jump an obstacle so many feet. The same goes for other aspects of history. What race someone was while doing whatever is not of importance. It is what the provided to humanity. Louis Pasteur could have been Caucasian or he could have been another race, who cares? The same goes for Isaac Newton. Im sure he wasnt remembered for his race.

It's just outside of Genoa Italy. It's where all the "White Guys" live.

 

[Route 66]

It only creates separation if you let it. The terms black or white do not imply anything--rather, people infer meaning. That is to say, the terms aren't inherently divisive, rather, people are. What matters is your use of the term, not the term itself. In this case, I don't care what the media is saying or what you think they are saying. Dungy and Lovie are the first black head coaches in the super bowl. The term 'black' in the bolded statement does not imply anything here--it is only a fact. Now, your problem seems to be with how people use the term (and you may be perfectly right to argue this, truth is, I really don't care) but that shouldn't preclude us from mentioning it--because it is, after all, simply a fact, nothing else.

Okkkk. So I am at fault for taking separation by reading a headline where it says "THE FIRST BLACK COACH TO....." Separation was in the first three words. Period. It has nothing to do with how I take it. Anyone who puts race in a headline or accomplishment further complicates matters. You entirely miss the point. Why is it history to mention that they were the first of their race to do it? How is that significant to make it such a huge deal? They could have done it any number of times.

How far does that go? The first astronaut who landed on the moon was a significant part of history and yet they didn't state "WHITE MAN LANDS ON MOON". Nor should they have. A man is a man. Dont separate by using separating words like color definitions.

 

[Bleu Star]

It's just outside of Genoa Italy. It's where all the "White Guys" live.

Are those the white guys that speak that strange language?

 

[Route 66]

It's just outside of Genoa Italy. It's where all the "White Guys" live.

Yeah and they make a good salami so whats the point.

 

[Route 66]

It seems to me that this moment in history has more significance than I initially thought. This is apparent by how roused it has some people. Some of us will sit back and enjoy this moment in history while others will throw salad at the screen.

Just thinking out loud...

This moment of ignorance is what made this last this long-it has nothing to do with Tony Dungy.

 

[Bleu Star]

This moment of ignorance is what made this last this long-it has nothing to do with Tony Dungy.

It's inevitable. Embrace it. Don't destroy a perfectly good TV in 2 weeks. :

 

[Route 66]

I wont embrace separation of color EVER.

 

[Gaede]

As far as I am concerned, the native americans were quite happy with "discovering" this continent way before the "Italian Stallion" did. History is important but to whom? It is important to each and every person in his or her own way. Evel Kneivel didnt make the headlines as being the first white guy to jump an obstacle so many feet. The same goes for other aspects of history. What race someone was while doing whatever is not of importance. It is what the provided to humanity. Louis Pasteur could have been Caucasian or he could have been another race, who cares? The same goes for Isaac Newton. Im sure he wasnt remembered for his race.

Now, this I don't agree with. When race is an essential important part of the equation, then it needs to be mentioned. For example, it is important to mention that Jackie Robinson was black--because he was the first black baseball player in the majors. In this instance, race needs to be mentioned because it is part of the equation--otherwise, he wouldn't be history. We don't say that Columbus was the first white explorer to discover a new continent because simply, all the explorers were white! Thus, when you discuss Columbus' history--it isn't necessary to mention his colour, because it is necessarily assumed and thereby inconsequential. The same would go for Isaac Newton. His colour would be assumed--merely because 99% of philosphers, scientists at the time were white. People that are remembered for their race, like Dungy and Lovie now, are done so because it is, again, part of the equation that makes them history.

Which returns us to the primary point we've been making all along (the one your losing sight of): we mention Dungy and Lovie's race because, in this situation, it is historically unprecedented and thus, history.

 

[Bleu Star]

I wont embrace separation of color EVER.

Ok.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah and they make a good salami so whats the point.

Listen, I don't want to take this down a juvenal road because I just think that it's too important a subject matter. So instead, I'll just say this.

I understand what you are trying to say but you, in turn, must understand that while this may not be an important issue to you, it is to some. I understand what you are trying to say. Skin should not be the important issue. It shouldn't matter what color. I get it. However, the fact is that it does matter in that it's important to a segmant of people, not because it's a line of demarcation but rather, it is a point in the history of sport (and even society) that marks a level of equality. For you, it may not be an important thing but for others it is very important. Who am I to tell them it is not? Better for me just to view it as something of importance to those who believe it to be such and celebrate it on those merrits.

 

[Bleu Star]

Now, this I don't agree with. When race is an essential important part of the equation, then it needs to be mentioned. For example, it is important to mention that Jackie Robinson was black--because he was the first black baseball player in the majors. In this instance, race needs to be mentioned because it is part of the equation--otherwise, he wouldn't be history. We don't say that Columbus was the first white explorer to discover a new continent because simply, all the explorers were white! Thus, when you discuss Columbus' history--it isn't necessary to mention his colour, because it is necessarily assumed and thereby inconsequential. The same would go for Isaac Newton. His colour would be assumed--merely because 99% of philosphers, scientists at the time were white. People that are remembered for their race, like Dungy and Lovie now, are done so because it is, again, part of the equation that makes them history[i/].

Which returns us to the primary point we've been making all along (the one your losing sight of): we mention Dungy and Lovie's race because, in this situation, it is historically unprecedented and thus, history.

Save your breath. You can't reason with this guy. His color pallette consists of gray, gray, and gray.

 

[Gaede]

Save your breath. You can't reason with this guy. His color pallette consists of gray, gray, and gray.

Yeah, I've said my piece and he clearly isn't listening.

 

[Route 66]

Now, this I don't agree with. When race is an essential important part of the equation, then it needs to be mentioned. For example, it is important to mention that Jackie Robinson was black--because he was the first black baseball player in the majors. In this instance, race needs to be mentioned because it is part of the equation--otherwise, he wouldn't be history. We don't say that Columbus was the first white explorer to discover a new continent because simply, all the explorers were white! Thus, when you discuss Columbus' history--it isn't necessary to mention his colour, because it is necessarily assumed and thereby inconsequential. The same would go for Isaac Newton. His colour would be assumed--merely because 99% of philosphers, scientists at the time were white. People that are remembered for their race, like Dungy and Lovie now, are done so because it is, again, part of the equation that makes them history.

Which returns us to the primary point we've been making all along (the one your losing sight of): we mention Dungy and Lovie's race because, in this situation, it is historically unprecedented and thus, history.

You still produce no validity to state your belief. Whether or not someone was the first of their race to do ANYTHING does not justify history to everyone. Thats like stating "SOSO was the shortest President in US History"...As far as I recall, that does nothing to the position of the Presidency. It is what that person did while they were in office that mattered to History. But according to you they were the shortest and the first to do it so.........

It didnt matter that Martin Luther King was black or green, it was what he accomplished. If Jackie Robinson was the first one to be MVP in the league, that is history. It is irrelevant what color his skin was while accomplishing said task. Bringing up color as I have said all along perpetuates separation.