2020 Coaching Carousel: #AnyoneButMcDaniels
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
To me, the Rooney Rule is backwards. Why not have a minority hiring rule for people trying to get into the coaching field therefore the candidate pool of minority candidates is bigger. I know they have an internship program for minorities trying to break in, but is that enough?
This seems totally reasonable. You make a good point that it is systemic and needs to be done throughout the coaching pipeline. I think that’s a good suggestion and better than the Russillo one. It struck me that if Andy Reid (of all coaches) can’t recommend to teams and get his black OC hired, something is wrong. His tree is really impressive.
To what extent is it a verifiable fact that loads of black men (or women) who want to become NFL football coaches - whether at the entry level, as head coaches or anywhere in between - are unable to do so because of their skin color? Is the desire to have more black coaches in the NFL motivated by a desire to right a wrong, or to pursue a social goal for its own sake?
(Those aren't meant to be leading questions, by the way; I don't know the answers, and I'm genuinely curious to know where any race-related frustration with this year's hirings might be coming from.)
(Those aren't meant to be leading questions, by the way; I don't know the answers, and I'm genuinely curious to know where any race-related frustration with this year's hirings might be coming from.)
That's fairly close to the general population ratio. And higher than the college-educated ratio. And higher than the Fortune 500 CEO ratio.
But yes, it's much lower than the % of former players.
I think the implicit assumption is that the % of players should match the % of head coaches.
I am not Al Campanis and I don't say the above with a point of view on the answer. But it is the step in between the last couple posts. Is there any reason (putting aside racism, obviously) that we wouldn't expect the above to be true? That's a helpful part of the discussion.
I am not Al Campanis and I don't say the above with a point of view on the answer. But it is the step in between the last couple posts. Is there any reason (putting aside racism, obviously) that we wouldn't expect the above to be true? That's a helpful part of the discussion.
I haven't looked exhaustively at the coaching side, but I looked at front offices, and the breakdown was ~28% black pretty consistently up until GM, which was much lower. My impression on the coaching side is that positional coaches and defensive coaches have a better representation, but the offensive side of the ball is much more white. Black coaches are often former players that get funneled to coach their former positions and given less opportunity for advancement.
They do have the Bill Walsh Diversity Coaching Fellowships where minority (and in recent years, women) coaches are placed with teams in the offseason / training camp. I know there has been talk of expanding this program to year-round, though that kind of gets close to forcing teams to hire somebody.
Like in many things, I don't think it's explicit racism (at least not for the most part). A lot of hiring happens on referrals, nepotism, and networking. Bill Belichick hired his two sons, Al Groh's kid, Mike Lombardi's kid, Josh McDaniels (the son of a famous HS coach), two of McDaniels' college buddies, etc. - all white. And Bill Belichick is no worse than anyone else in this regard - in fact, he won an award for promoting diversity and equality!
Nepotism, referral, and networking aren't inherently racist. Chris Grier, the only black GM, is Bobby Grier's kid. But obviously there has been plenty of racism historically, so there are way more white kids who are sons of coaches, etc. than minority kids. Hiring practices based on nepotism, referral, and networking are invariably going to disproportionately benefit white coaches, even with no racist intent.
Many / most coaches did not play in the NFL. But the vast majority played at least some college football. Across every level, college football players are 39% black and 14% other non-white, and gets less white the more advanced the level of competition. I don't know what the "right" breakdown is, but by any measure black / minority personnel are under-represented compared to the general pool of candidates.
I understand you, but I've learned that your question is an anachronistic one. I work in an area where you need to be an expert in two fields; these two knowledge areas would seem to be unrelated to one who works outside of my field. For whatever reason, we receive very few job applications from people of color. But our new diversity and inclusion philosophies are teaching us (leaders in the field who are not of color) that it is important to build a requirement into our hiring practices to seek out candidates of color, i.e., go out of our way to try to find candidates of color. That's regardless of whether it's a "verifiable fact that loads of black men (or women) who want to [work in my area] - whether at the entry level, as [managers] or anywhere in between - are unable to do so because of their skin color." Simply put, the onus is on us to bring people of color into our ranks. If we instill these requirements in many different industries, it will have a positive impact on our culture in a variety of ways. I, for one, would understand that someone could have "race-related frustrations" with the racial makeup of my field. But we're working on it. I'm glad the NFL has the Rooney rule. It was / is a step in the right direction.
I can't speak to "want to become" who haven't entered the coaching ranks. People choose to focus on different careers for myriad reasons, although as you well know, former players often look to stay in the industry and coaching is one fairly common avenue to do so. Clearly "unable to [become a coach]" isn't the right description, but just as clearly, "proportionately have less success doing so, as a matter of statistics" is an accurate statement.
We can only infer it from two facts:
1. As you go up the coaching hierarchy, the fraction of minorities holding the jobs lessens at every step
2. There are no biological reasons that would explain a race-based difference in aptitude, networking ability, etc. This isn't propensity to get sunburns. If anything, a black coach is likely to have more in common with the 68% of NFL players who are black, which you'd think would be an advantage in trying to relate to and motivate them.
Getting passed over for a promotion or a hire doesn't have to be motivated from outright animus in order to be, ultimately, a biased decision. We're all more comfortable with those who are more like us, who do the same things socially or speak the same way in a professional setting. But the cumulative effect perpetuates divisions and biased attitudes in society, especially in a place as high-profile as the NFL which has the ability to affect people's perceptions about these things, and that makes it worth trying to fight.
Last edited:
And then be forced to keep said minority hire in that position for a certain amount of time?
I think even giving the coach an opportunity for a year would allow for greater visibility. For example, early in the season I (and I think others) expected Flores to be on, or close to, the chopping block after a year because of how terrible the Dolphins looked. Instead he was able to get that team playing hard and if the Dolphins were to suddenly disband for some reason I think he’d be a very hot commodity on the open market this offseason.
* I know he was never actually going to be fired after this season because of the intentional tanking aspect of their roster moves, but what he did was impressive considering the moves they made
View: https://twitter.com/mlombardinfl/status/1215791900868911106?s=21
... for the Browns. Let’s. Go.
... for the Browns. Let’s. Go.
Seems like his heel turn in Indianapolis combined with the Patriots’ poor offensive showing this season have spooked owners and considerably cooled McDaniels’ head coaching job prospects. I’m sure he will get consideration for a job in the not too distant future though. There is so much turnover among NFL head coaches and only so many qualified candidates.
In the meantime he'll have to content himself with being the highest-paid coordinator in the league, the heir apparent to Belichick, and the linchpin that holds together the continuing motivations and positive working environment that retains Scarnecchia, Brady, and many others. Oh, and being the whipping boy around here every time an offensive play doesn't result in a touchdown. Big perk, that.
Or he turned down working for a basket case owner and god a Godfatber to come back home. Also, didn’t want to work for a shitshow in Cleveland and Haslam but was willing to listen.
Pretty sure he’ll get another shot at it. There wasn’t a lot of great openings this year.
Yep. Your comments with respect to Cleveland ring true as entirely possible. I thought he would at least get a shot with the Giants though which seemed like a pretty decent opening. As others have noted he has a pretty good gig to fall back on until something good opens up and if McDaniels coming back increases the likelihood of Brady coming back for another season or two it’s a win in my book.
Definitely a win if he comes back no matter how much the fans like to shit on him. Patriots OC had always been an unfair whipping boy. Expectations are not reasonable.
Mike Russo, as far as I can tell working off of speculation, conjecture, invisible dots and a vivid imagination, spent a very long time explaining* that Belichick must have told John Mara to hire Judge and not McDaniels; also Mad Dog is pretty sure McDaniels will not be happy with “Bill.”
Sounded ridiculous to me but hey he’s been around that scene awhile.
*edit: when I say “a very long time” as an example in arguing his theory he gave various statistics from the 1962 NFL Championship Game.
Mazz made the same point. Sounded like pure speculation, hot air, filling air time, etc.
Well this would fit with the following: Richard Neer on WFAN this morning endorsed a caller's suggestion that Judge to the Giants is a precursor to BB retiring from coaching in 2 years and moving into the GM/president of football operations role with the Giants.
Well Belichick was only gone because George Young hated him! Hated him! Young was never going to make him HC!
and as far as I know George young is no longer there
Word. He makes some goofy calls, but overall solid and creative guy. Good communicator, works well with others. Love him coming back.
He made chicken salad out of chicken shit this year. Multiple OL injuries and JAG receivers make everybody look bad.
P.s. Three different moron sports talk hosts quoted on one page of this thread. Must be a new record. Well done, people.
Josh’s lack of options may not be entirely his own doing. This is likely contributing to the speculation.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bill-belichick-refused-to-allow-josh-mcdaniels-to-move-up-coaching-interviews-despite-playoff-loss/amp/
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bill-belichick-refused-to-allow-josh-mcdaniels-to-move-up-coaching-interviews-despite-playoff-loss/amp/
I don’t know how I’d feel about that if I’m Josh. Especially if BB was holding him back while simultaneously pushing Judge. Truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
This shit is so dumb. McDaniels has had plenty of opportunities to leave. But now the evil puppetmaster Bill Belichick is preventing him from interviewing? Ya ok.
First of all, Brady has played a good number of seasons without Josh in house. Secondly, BB had agreed to show Josh more of how he conducts team operations, so keeping Josh around for a few days right after the season ended might have been part of that.
I didn’t even realize teams could decline to make people available once they were done for the season. I thought that was one of the long-standing Patriots tropes. That the coaches can’t even interview until jobs are pretty much filled because we’re always playing into February. Now we can just receive to make people available? The nuances of these rules will always escape me.
Same system though since Josh learned under Weis and inherited that offense. Also, how many rings does Brady have while running the offenses Josh wasn’t around for? There were some shit show years (by Patriots standards, of course) from 2009 until his return (was that 2012?). Did we make a Super Bowl without him? I honesty can’t remember. That’s not to overinflated his value, just to say that he is one of the vanishingly small number of coaches in this league with six rings and that means something. I’m just not sure what since he was a lot less prominent in the early seasons. He became QB coach/boy wonder in 2004 but he was on staff in 2001.
I think your second point likely explains it. Josh is more intimately tied to football opps now, and there must be a ton of work to do when it’s time to wrap up for the season.
This is garbage
2009: 26.7 ppg / 6th
2010: 32.4 / 1st
2011: 32.1 / 3rd
He came back during the 2011 playoff run and they went to the Super Bowl.
The offense was great during the BoB years.
It never ceases to amuse me how Giants fans are CONVINCED that deep down, everyone ultimately wants to work for the Giants, and if you've ever worked for them in the past, your only goal in life is to die in Giants blue. Bill has had no affiliation whatsoever with that team for almost 30 years, has achieved the bulk of his success building another franchise, but really all he wants to do is come back and wash John Mara's ballsack.
View: https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/1216064076708745216?s=2
Do the Browns even know what they are doing? Josh might have already bailed
Do the Browns even know what they are doing? Josh might have already bailed
Giants have requested to interview Patrick Graham for their DC role. It would be a lateral move so no expectation that it will be granted.
