Brian Flores suing NFL, Giants over "sham" Rooney rule - "mistakenly" (?) sent Belichick text may be linchpin

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,553
CT
Every human being on the planet is kind of a dick, especially when we get mistreated.
I don’t disagree, but when you’re staring down an institution like the NFL, you have to be more calculated than “I should have gotten Lovie’s job.”

You can think that privately all you want. That’s fine. Tell your wife. Tell your kids. You can’t release that statement.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,884
New York City
I don’t necessarily think that Flores is handling it in a “douchey way” but I do think that he’s undermining his own case when he released that statement on Lovie Smith.

He is making the case that he was dismissed because he wouldn’t cooperate with the owner’s request to tamper and tank.

They’re saying that he was fired because he was kind of a dick and hard to work with.

And so far, Flores is showing that he might actually kind of be a dick and hard to work with.
Wait, how has Flores shown he's a dick who is hard to work with (and in particular how has he shown he's a dick who's hard to work with to a degree that's unusual for an NFL coach?)

EDIT: Other than the statement about Louie Smith. At this point it's almost certain that the lawyers are in charge of whatever Flores is saying.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
648
a lot of this is starting to sound like the common “you should protest peacefully, but don’t take a knee, another way, no not that way either, try something else, no not that either”
I'll probably regret this, but I don't think it's a good idea to:
- Lump the burning of cities in with people marching in the streets
- Lump the burning of cities with things like taking a knee or voicing an opinion or taking up a civil court case
- Excuse those who did billions of dollars of damage, killed/injured dozens of people, and had a horrible short and long-term impact on the marginalized communities that they affected

We have hindsight now - we know from research, polling, news stories, etc. that the most people who lived in areas where rioting happened didn't want it to happen and the people cheering on the riots were rich people who didn't live in those areas. Burning corner stores, pharmacies, even chains where people from the neighborhood worked was not a pragmatic or effective way to combat the ills of America - it only made them worse. Great, you looted a Target and caused it to move out of the neighborhood, now where the hell are 100s of employees who relied on that paycheck going work?

Sorry - this just stands out to me as an example of flattening political speech to include a whole bunch of stuff that it shouldn't. People were right to not want neighborhoods to burn in 2020 and you can hold that opinion and still want the NFL to have a more robust funnel of minority coaches. They're not remotely the same thing.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I don’t disagree, but when you’re staring down an institution like the NFL, you have to be more calculated than “I should have gotten Lovie’s job.”

You can think that privately all you want. That’s fine. Tell your wife. Tell your kids. You can’t release that statement.
While it reflects poorly on Flores, we have to remember that this wasn't a direct quote from BF. It was a statement issued by his attorney.
 

Cotillion

lurker
Jun 11, 2019
2,772
I'll probably regret this, but I don't think it's a good idea to:
- Lump the burning of cities in with people marching in the streets
- Lump the burning of cities with things like taking a knee or voicing an opinion or taking up a civil court case
- Excuse those who did billions of dollars of damage, killed/injured dozens of people, and had a horrible short and long-term impact on the marginalized communities that they affected

We have hindsight now - we know from research, polling, news stories, etc. that the most people who lived in areas where rioting happened didn't want it to happen and the people cheering on the riots were rich people who didn't live in those areas. Burning corner stores, pharmacies, even chains where people from the neighborhood worked was not a pragmatic or effective way to combat the ills of America - it only made them worse. Great, you looted a Target and caused it to move out of the neighborhood, now where the hell are 100s of employees who relied on that paycheck going work?

Sorry - this just stands out to me as an example of flattening political speech to include a whole bunch of stuff that it shouldn't. People were right to not want neighborhoods to burn in 2020 and you can hold that opinion and still want the NFL to have a more robust funnel of minority coaches. They're not remotely the same thing.
You made it specific... those words have been said over and over against marginalized groups every time they rose up to protest things going wrong. MLK Jr was told the same, women arguing for voting rights, etc... the reason why the list is there is because every time a marginalized group makes life uncomfortable for the status quo the status quo responds the same way "yes yes you have a point, but do it a different way". It's literally the playbook going back forever...
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
15,180
Washington
Wait, how has Flores shown he's a dick who is hard to work with (and in particular how has he shown he's a dick who's hard to work with to a degree that's unusual for an NFL coach?)
I think it depends how deep and enduring the rift between him and his old GM was and why.

It seems plausible enough to me that all of it could be true to some degree or another. Flores' allegations and the reporting about how hard he was to work aren't mutually exclusive.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
648
You made it specific... those words have been said over and over against marginalized groups every time they rose up to protest things going wrong. MLK Jr was told the same, women arguing for voting rights, etc... the reason why the list is there is because every time a marginalized group makes life uncomfortable for the status quo the status quo responds the same way "yes yes you have a point, but do it a different way". It's literally the playbook going back forever...
I made it specific because that's the most recent example of a time when people were saying, "Hey, that's probably not a great idea" and they were right to say that - it was not a good idea. And I'm not sure what MLK has to do with it when he famously was a proponent of peaceful protests.

We're way off topic, but it is possible to criticize people for not being pragmatic because we're all individuals who do smart things and also make mistakes. Not everything fits into an Instagram meme.
 

Cotillion

lurker
Jun 11, 2019
2,772
I made it specific because that's the most recent example of a time when people were saying, "Hey, that's probably not a great idea" and they were right to say that - it was not a good idea. And I'm not sure what MLK has to do with it when he famously was a proponent of peaceful protests.

We're way off topic, but it is possible to criticize people for not being pragmatic because we're all individuals who do smart things and also make mistakes. Not everything fits into an Instagram meme.
You really need to go read up on your history of MLK opposition and what was said about him at the time.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,553
CT
While it reflects poorly on Flores, we have to remember that this wasn't a direct quote from BF. It was a statement issued by his attorney.
This is true. For better or worse, they’re his representation. A best case scenario is they’ve made him seem like a dick without running the statement by him for approval.

A more likely scenario is they showed him the statement before releasing it, and he agreed with the messaging.

Either way, it’s a misstep by either Flores himself or his attorneys.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
648
You really need to go read up on your history of MLK opposition and what was said about him at the time.
Okay, where do I find that history? This is what I remember from studying him in high school and college. And when I go to Stanford's Martin Luther King institute to confirm my prior understanding, I see this: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/nonviolence

After Black Power advocates such as Stokely Carmichael began to reject nonviolence, King lamented that some African Americans had lost hope, and reaffirmed his own commitment to nonviolence: “Occasionally in life one develops a conviction so precious and meaningful that he will stand on it till the end. This is what I have found in nonviolence”

Edit: Okay - we're crossing wires because I'm specifically talking about MLK agreeing with my position on peaceful protests.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
648
Where did the burning of cities come in? I'm honestly confused.
Cotillion made a statement that people critiquing Flores' case are similar to those who believe protests should be peaceful and I'm not sure how they're at all similar considering recent history.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,711
Needham, MA
Cotillion made a statement that people critiquing Flores' case are similar to those who believe protests should be peaceful and I'm not sure how they're at all similar considering recent history.
No he didn't, he said:

a lot of this is starting to sound like the common “you should protest peacefully, but don’t take a knee, another way, no not that way either, try something else, no not that either”
He's saying people critiquing Flores are starting to sound like people who ostensibly are supportive of the goals of peaceful protesters, but don't like the form of protest itself (i.e., taking a knee).
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,023
I think the only stumble so far from team Flores was the statement after the Lovie Smith hiring. They had to say something, but pointing out Flores is a better candidate was IMO unnecessary. Just say congrats to Lovie Smith but one team hiring one black coach doesn't mean there isn't a larger problem. Beyond that, there's no way of doing what Flores is trying to do without people's feathers getting ruffled. Hell we spent two days in this thread on why recommendations like the one BB gave for Daboll can be problematic, with more than a few posters who simply could not internalize that the way they have hired people basically forever might be problematic. People don't like it when they are faced with the reality that they (or their team, or their coach) might be part of the problem.
This is 100% true.

Since this isn’t an official statement from a lawyer, I do have to point out that Lovie Smith is an extremely bad head coaching candidate. It’s amazing that they fired Culley (another minority) after the job he did last year and replaced him with Lovie. What a terribly run organization
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
15,180
Washington
I don't think Lovie Smith is an extremely bad coaching candidate for Houston. He's been working there for the last year on the defensive side and they know him.

He's been Coach of the year and took the Bears to the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman as his QB. Of couse his overall record is mixed and he has plenty of flaws too.

He's not a very exciting pick at all, but "extremely bad" seems like hyperbole.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
6,367
While it reflects poorly on Flores, we have to remember that this wasn't a direct quote from BF. It was a statement issued by his attorney.
They work for him. They may have (and most likely did) come up with it. But, he must have signed off on it.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
They work for him. They may have (and most likely did) come up with it. But, he must have signed off on it.
It should have been available for his review and he should have had the final say on it, but we don't know the inner workings of any of this. Are these BF's words and did he sign off on this statement? I'd like to hear these questions asked the next time Flores or his representation are available for interview.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
6,367
If he didn’t sign off on it, he should have immediately come out with a statement in support of Smith and that there should have been no implication that Flores was a superior choice than Smith for that job. But, I really doubt the lawyers ran with that statement without his approval.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
If he didn’t sign off on it, he should have immediately come out with a statement in support of Smith and that there should have been no implication that Flores was a superior choice than Smith for that job. But, I really doubt the lawyers ran with that statement without his approval.
I don't disagree and that's why I'd like to hear these questions asked of BF.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,111
Florida
If he didn’t sign off on it, he should have immediately come out with a statement in support of Smith and that there should have been no implication that Flores was a superior choice than Smith for that job. But, I really doubt the lawyers ran with that statement without his approval.
No lawyer is releasing a statement from their client without their client’s approval, good grief.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
302
Yep, Flores undoubtedly reviewed the Lovie Smith release and signed off on it. He owns that.

But I don't think that was his only mistake.

Maybe he felt that the only or best way to make his case was to use the mistaken Daboll text. Maybe that was the way he had to show that the interview was a sham. It certainly got instant media attention.

But to go on that podcast and allude to Belichick's history? As if he has a history of racism. Bill's staffs have always been diverse and as mentioned, he very likely gave Flores the same positive review he gave Daboll. Flores got a head coaching job at a very young age coming directly from the Patriots. And Bill hired him in the first place. I just can't see why he thinks going after someone who did so much for him and his career was necessary.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
11,465
guam
Yep, Flores undoubtedly reviewed the Lovie Smith release and signed off on it. He owns that.

But I don't think that was his only mistake.

Maybe he felt that the only or best way to make his case was to use the mistaken Daboll text. Maybe that was the way he had to show that the interview was a sham. It certainly got instant media attention.

But to go on that podcast and allude to Belichick's history? As if he has a history of racism. Bill's staffs have always been diverse and as mentioned, he very likely gave Flores the same positive review he gave Daboll. Flores got a head coaching job at a very young age coming directly from the Patriots. And Bill hired him in the first place. I just can't see why he thinks going after someone who did so much for him and his career was necessary.
I'm not sure if it's even worth bothering, but I really don't think he was "going after" Belichick. I just looked back through the thread, and it's actually your post that quotes him. He's making a broader point about the overall environment -- I don't think it's an attack on Belichick specifically.
https://www.audacy.com/weei/sports/patriots/flores-giants-hired-daboll-with-bill-belichick-influence?utm_source=WEEI-FM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEEI-FM NEWSLETTER&utm_content=WEEI Daily Mashup 2-4-22&mi_u=1558937&mi_ecmp=WEEI Daily Mashup 2-4-22

“I think there are back channel conversations and back channel meetings that are had that oftentimes influence decisions,” Flores told Jay Williams of NPR’s podcast The Limits. “I think [the Giants hiring process] is a clear example of that. Bill Belichick is a clear example of that. His resume speaks to that. It was clear to me that decision was made with his influence. That’s part of the problem. That needs to change. There needs to be a fair and equal opportunity to interview and showcase your abilities to lead and earn one of those positions.”
The point he's making is that there's an old boys club. Guess what? Belichick is part of that. He's not saying Belichick is specifically the problem, he's saying that there's a feedback loop and it is very difficult to break through that. There's no need to read this as a personal assault on Belichick, unless you're looking for a strawman to knock down.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
33,679
AZ
I'm not sure if it's even worth bothering, but I really don't think he was "going after" Belichick. I just looked back through the thread, and it's actually your post that quotes him. He's making a broader point about the overall environment -- I don't think it's an attack on Belichick specifically.


The point he's making is that there's an old boys club. Guess what? Belichick is part of that. He's not saying Belichick is specifically the problem, he's saying that there's a feedback loop and it is very difficult to break through that. There's no need to read this as a personal assault on Belichick, unless you're looking for a strawman to knock down.
In a context where it appears that Belichick knew the other guy was hired before Flores even had his Rooney interview. Belichick congratulating Daboll (or trying to anyway) before Flores had his interview is something that I would think would make Flores very sad about the state of the NFL's approach to minority coaches. It doesn't mean Belichick is a racist or even that he did anything wrong, but in that context, what Flores said in the podcast does not strike me as the least bit problematic.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
16,385
Somewhere
I interpreted Flores “part of the problem” statement as referring to Belichick being among the many in the NFL establishment who don’t even see that there’s a problem with the lack of diversity in the coaching/executive ranks.

The wagon circling has been predictable, and was predicted by more than a few here. One thing to keep in mind is that Flores doesn’t need to be brave, heroic, or even consistent to be right. I mean, the facts are out there in the open.

However, the NFL would probably gladly take a PR win in exchange for an undisclosed settlement and I would be shocked if this goes any other way.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,711
Needham, MA
I'm not sure if it's even worth bothering, but I really don't think he was "going after" Belichick. I just looked back through the thread, and it's actually your post that quotes him. He's making a broader point about the overall environment -- I don't think it's an attack on Belichick specifically.


The point he's making is that there's an old boys club. Guess what? Belichick is part of that. He's not saying Belichick is specifically the problem, he's saying that there's a feedback loop and it is very difficult to break through that. There's no need to read this as a personal assault on Belichick, unless you're looking for a strawman to knock down.
Exactly this. He's not calling BB a racist or even saying that BB did anything wrong necessarily. BB did what probably anyone else in his shoes would have done in that situation. Flores is saying that the mere fact that BB is asked to weigh in on the Giants coaching situation and his input apparently matters is "part of the problem".

Now, I might agree that Flores made a mistake by bringing this up, not because he's wrong, but because predictably you have reactions like the one in this thread circling wagons around BB and getting pissed at Flores for the audacity to call him out as a racist (which he didn't do).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,163
Hingham, MA
Exactly this. He's not calling BB a racist or even saying that BB did anything wrong necessarily. BB did what probably anyone else in his shoes would have done in that situation. Flores is saying that the mere fact that BB is asked to weigh in on the Giants coaching situation and his input apparently matters is "part of the problem".

Now, I might agree that Flores made a mistake by bringing this up, but not because he's wrong, but because predictably you have reactions like the one in this thread circling wagons around BB and getting pissed at Flores for the audacity to call him out as a racist (which he didn't do).
I think it's less "circling the wagons around BB and getting pissed at Flores for the audacity to call him out as a racist (which he didn't do)", and moreso "BB likely gave a great recommendation of Flores back when he was hired in 2019, so it feels somewhat hypocritical of Flores to be calling out BB on this issue". At least that's my personal take. YMMV.
 

Commander Shears

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2005
879
I interpreted Flores “part of the problem” statement as referring to Belichick being among the many in the NFL establishment who don’t even see that there’s a problem with the lack of diversity in the coaching/executive ranks.
I’ll go a little further and say that Belichick is one of the most egregious examples of a related problem - not as it relates specifically to race but in how he presents job opportunities and to whom.

Two of his sons
Al Groh’s son
Mike Lombardi’s son
Ron Wolf’s son
Hiring back former assistants who get fired elsewhere
Not having official coordinators (which means he isn't obligated to interview anyone for those jobs)
I don’t know who the first John Carroll alum he hired was but did we end up with three or was it four teammates from the smallest school on the planet?

Yes, Belichick hires black coaches but he may be the most extreme example of someone who only hires people he already knows - ideally, he’s molded them since they were twenty two years old. That closed-door behavior runs counter to the solution.
 
Last edited:

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,711
Needham, MA
I think it's less "circling the wagons around BB and getting pissed at Flores for the audacity to call him out as a racist (which he didn't do)", and moreso "BB likely gave a great recommendation of Flores back when he was hired in 2019, so it feels somewhat hypocritical of Flores to be calling out BB on this issue". At least that's my personal take. YMMV.
Well first, we don't know that is true. I could see BB being asked for input on the Giants job (an organization he has history with and in the NFC) but not being asked, or maybe even not wanting to help a division rival hire away one of his coordinators.

Second, if Ross reached out to BB to ask about Flores and Flores didn't ask for that to happen, how is it hypocritical? Maybe Flores' position is, judge me on my record, my resume and my interview. Don't call anyone for a recommendation because those feedback loops contribute to the inequality that exists today.

And even if Flores asked BB to put in a good word for him with the Dolphins, given that we are talking about how to break the cycle of the NFL hiring almost exclusively white coaches, that should be viewed differently than a similar recommendation for Daboll.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
11,465
guam
Or maybe Flores isn't even giving it that deep of consideration. He's just saying "man, it's fucked up that because he's part of the club, he knew that Daboll was being hired before I was even interviewed." Isn't that bad enough? I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with checking references. But if everyone in the know knows that the process is a fraud--except the guy going through it--that's got to feel pretty bad.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,163
Hingham, MA
Well first, we don't know that is true. I could see BB being asked for input on the Giants job (an organization he has history with and in the NFC) but not being asked, or maybe even not wanting to help a division rival hire away one of his coordinators.

Second, if Ross reached out to BB to ask about Flores and Flores didn't ask for that to happen, how is it hypocritical? Maybe Flores' position is, judge me on my record, my resume and my interview. Don't call anyone for a recommendation because those feedback loops contribute to the inequality that exists today.

And even if Flores asked BB to put in a good word for him with the Dolphins, given that we are talking about how to break the cycle of the NFL hiring almost exclusively white coaches, that should be viewed differently than a similar recommendation for Daboll.
Right, we have no idea who did and who didn't ask for recommendations, which is why it is difficult to assess. Completely agree on that point.

Also agree that if Flores didn't ask for it to happen in either case, then it's not hypocritical on his part (and I'm guessing that he didn't ask for it to happen in either case).

Finally, I completely understand your point about feedback loops contributing to inequality.

Ultimately, like you (or someone else said), if BB was asked his opinion or for a recommendation, of course he's going to provide it. The issue is that this cycle of feedback loops needs to be broken and it's probably more on the "asking" side than the "giving" side to help break that loop.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,443
I don’t know how applying for NFL jobs works but most jobs ask for references. I assume Miami asked BB about Flores and lo and behold, Flores got the job there.

I’m sure Flores is well aware that teams ask around about potential hires. So the idea that BB giving Daboll a good reference is somehow in any way wrong or a problem...is nonsense. What else is a team supposed to do? You can’t hire a guy for the HC position based on a resumé and an interview only. You have to ask people what he’s like to work with, how he handles certain situations, etc.

I get that this creates a certain loop that’s harder for minorities to break through. I posted about this very early in this thread. But teams can’t NOT do this.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,711
Needham, MA
But teams can’t NOT do this.
Why?

Edit: I mean you literally admit this is a contributor to the inequality that exists in the coaching ranks, but then in the next sentence you think it is so important that teams can't not do it. Why? If it is a shitty practice that contributes to the problem, it should be done away with. I know that's never going to happen in the NFL, but if we don't challenge ourselves to behave differently in these situations change is going to be really hard to come by.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,674
Mansfield MA
I’ll go a little further and say that Belichick is one of the most egregious examples of a related problem - not as it relates specifically to race but in how he presents job opportunities and to whom.

Two of his sons
Al Groh’s son
Mike Lombardi’s son
Ron Wolf’s son
Hiring back former assistants who get fired elsewhere
Not having official coordinators (which means he isn't obligated to interview anyone for those jobs)
I don’t know who the first John Carroll alum he hired was but did we end up with three or was it four teammates from the smallest school on the planet?

Yes, Belichick hires black coaches but he may be the most extreme example of someone who only hires people he already knows - ideally, he’s molded them since they were twenty two years old. That closed-door behavior runs counter to the solution.
And even the black coaches he's hired are an example of this. Mayo and Troy Brown played for the Pats, obviously. Flores and DuJuan Daniels were college teammates; I forget who he hired first. Romeo Crennel was a guy he coached with in NYG; Ivan Fears was already on the staff when BB joined NE.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,443
Why?

Edit: I mean you literally admit this is a contributor to the inequality that exists in the coaching ranks, but then in the next sentence you think it is so important that teams can't not do it. Why? If it is a shitty practice that contributes to the problem, it should be done away with. I know that's never going to happen in the NFL, but if we don't challenge ourselves to behave differently in these situations change is going to be really hard to come by.
Imagine hiring someone for the most important position in your entire organization, no matter what field it is, and not ask for references. It would be insane.

It's not a bad practice at all. It's hugely important and, frankly, pretty necessary. It does contribute to a problem though, so the question is not should we get rid of a good practice that contributes to a larger problem, but rather can we find other ways to solve the problem.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
577
2022 NFL off-season: 9 coaching vacancies
Jan 27: Bears hire white head coach Matt Eberflus
Jan 27: Broncos hire white head coach Nathaniel Hackett
Jan 28: Giants hire white head coach Brian Daboll
Jan 31: Raiders hire white head coach Josh McDaniels
Feb 1: Brian Flores files lawsuit
Feb 2: Vikings reportedly hire white head coach Kevin O'Connell
Feb 4: Jaguars hire white head coach Doug Pederson
February 6: Dolphins hire biracial head coach Mike McDaniel
February 7: Texans hire black head coach Lovie Smith
Feb 8: Saints hire white head coach Dennis Allen
Pre Flores lawsuit: 4 hires, zero coaches of color
Post Flores lawsuit: 5 hires, 2 coaches of color
Pre Flores lawsuit: Negligible media attention focused on the hiring practices of NFL organizations
Post Flores lawsuit: Massive media attention focused on the hiring practices of NFL organizations
SOSH concern trolls: "Whoever is advising Flores is doing him a disservice! He doesn't understand the consequences of his actions! He doesn't realize that he has lit his career on fire! The NFL has a problem, but what happened to Flores isn't an example of it! He's got an interesting thesis but the evidence doesn't support it! He's making it harder for the next person who might actually be the victim of systemic racism! This isn't helping!"
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,711
Needham, MA
Imagine hiring someone for the most important position in your entire organization, no matter what field it is, and not ask for references. It would be insane.

It's not a bad practice at all. It's hugely important and, frankly, pretty necessary. It does contribute to a problem though, so the question is not should we get rid of a good practice that contributes to a larger problem, but rather can we find other ways to solve the problem.
I'm not really talking about references which are different, but at any rate I strongly disagree that this practice is necessary, or that the positives outweigh the negatives. My position on this is outlined in this thread several times already, so I'm not going to re-state it.

All I'll say is breaking this cycle is really hard, and if we aren't going to examine all of the things that contribute to inequality and be willing to do things differently than we have become accustomed to, it is going to be even harder.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,323
around the way
I think it's less "circling the wagons around BB and getting pissed at Flores for the audacity to call him out as a racist (which he didn't do)", and moreso "BB likely gave a great recommendation of Flores back when he was hired in 2019, so it feels somewhat hypocritical of Flores to be calling out BB on this issue". At least that's my personal take. YMMV.
But he's not calling out Belichick. He's giving Belichick as an example of how the old boy network works, and why the old boy network is bad. Given that Bill is a literal old boy and part of the network, I'm not seeing the unnecessary roughness here.

And yes, the old boy network actually benefited Flores once. Doesn't mean that it's a good thing or that Flores shouldn't want to see its influence lessened.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,443
I'm not really talking about references which are different, but at any rate I strongly disagree that this practice is necessary, or that the positives outweigh the negatives. My position on this is outlined in this thread several times already, so I'm not going to re-state it.

All I'll say is breaking this cycle is really hard, and if we aren't going to examine all of the things that contribute to inequality and be willing to do things differently than we have become accustomed to, it is going to be even harder.
I have no problem with examining all aspects of it, and it's totally fair for us to ask questions about this aspect too. But I think it's crazy to imagine hiring the most important position in the organization and NOT talk to others around the league (or in college if he's currently a college coach) to find out how he coaches, what it's really like working with him, etc. I mean, it's utterly crazy to me to think that this is a bad practice.

I guess there's two ways to look at it. There's the immediate "hiring a person for THIS organization at THIS time" issue, and again, it seems nuts to me that any process in hiring someone as an NFL HC would not include talking to people who know him. But there's also the larger societal impact of the NFL hiring process and what any particular hire does to the entire culture of the NFL issue.

I just don't think that any NFL team making any particular hire is thinking about the second issue more than the first. Should they? I don't know. If BB were to retire tomorrow, would Pats' fans prefer that Kraft focuses on making the best hire for the PATRIOTS to put a successful team on the field, or that Kraft focuses on issues of social justice and racial equity when making this decision?

Note: I am NOT saying or hinting that the best person for the Pats would automatically be a white guy. I'm just talking about their *posture* towards the hiring process. What are they responsible for - what's best for the Patriots or what's better for SOCIETY? Maybe they end up being the same thing but one has to take logical priority over the other, it seems to me.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,163
Hingham, MA
But he's not calling out Belichick. He's giving Belichick as an example of how the old boy network works, and why the old boy network is bad. Given that Bill is a literal old boy and part of the network, I'm not seeing the unnecessary roughness here.

And yes, the old boy network actually benefited Flores once. Doesn't mean that it's a good thing or that Flores shouldn't want to see its influence lessened.
I'm with you all the way. But it's a nuanced argument that a lot of the general public won't understand.

To clarify, when I said it was my personal take, I meant it as my personal take as to why there was backlash against the statement, not my own personal view.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,323
around the way
I'm with you all the way. But it's a nuanced argument that a lot of the general public won't understand.

To clarify, when I said it was my personal take, I meant it as my personal take as to why there was backlash against the statement, not my own personal view.
Agreed, and it was clear.

I'm just venting there, as the general public is infuriating.

"Hey Flores is going after the Giants and Miami and the fucking NFL yay!"

"Hey wait, Flores said something that indicated that maybe Bill is part of the problem, fuck that guy."

It's a bad look.

It sucks if Bill knew that Flores was not getting the job before Flores even interviewed. That doesn't mean that Bill did anything overtly wrong. The old boy network sucks.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
76,269
Oregon
You could drive a truck through the separation in the Venn Diagram depicting knee-jerk NFL fans and those who understand "nuance"
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,443
The old boy network sucks.
This isn't, of course, limited to the NFL. This happens in most fields.

https://thejobsauce.com/is-landing-a-job-really-about-who-you-know/

"When you consider the hiring data available, a few statistics highlight that when it comes to landing an initial interview, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

Research from LinkedIn shows that in 2016, a whopping 70% of people were hired at a company where they already had a connection in place. That should be all the motivation you need to learn how to leverage your network to get referred by someone. At the most desirable companies the number is higher, with 95% landing jobs because of connections.

A study completed by Lever ATS indicated that, once interviewed, a referred candidate has a 20x higher chance of getting hired than someone who applied online for a critical job (8.3% if referred and 0.4% if applied online). When you’re referred by a source trusted by the hiring manager, that number increases to 50x (20% of hire compared to 0.4%).

Breakdown by the numbers of who is getting hired. It all comes down to this: it’s who you know that gets you referred and interviewed as a top candidate."


It's always been more about WHO you know than WHAT you know. In almost every industry.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,323
around the way
This isn't, of course, limited to the NFL. This happens in most fields.

https://thejobsauce.com/is-landing-a-job-really-about-who-you-know/

"When you consider the hiring data available, a few statistics highlight that when it comes to landing an initial interview, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

Research from LinkedIn shows that in 2016, a whopping 70% of people were hired at a company where they already had a connection in place. That should be all the motivation you need to learn how to leverage your network to get referred by someone. At the most desirable companies the number is higher, with 95% landing jobs because of connections.

A study completed by Lever ATS indicated that, once interviewed, a referred candidate has a 20x higher chance of getting hired than someone who applied online for a critical job (8.3% if referred and 0.4% if applied online). When you’re referred by a source trusted by the hiring manager, that number increases to 50x (20% of hire compared to 0.4%).

Breakdown by the numbers of who is getting hired. It all comes down to this: it’s who you know that gets you referred and interviewed as a top candidate."


It's always been more about WHO you know than WHAT you know. In almost every industry.
So are you exonerating the NFL for their institutional racism or pointing out that the rest of the country is that way also? If the latter, I completely concur.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,443
So are you exonerating the NFL for their institutional racism or pointing out that the rest of the country is that way also? If the latter, I completely concur.
I'm not exonerating anything. I'm just pointing out that this is how the world of employment works pretty much everywhere, and it's not remotely a uniquely NFL problem.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
33,679
AZ
Or maybe Flores isn't even giving it that deep of consideration. He's just saying "man, it's fucked up that because he's part of the club, he knew that Daboll was being hired before I was even interviewed." Isn't that bad enough? I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with checking references. But if everyone in the know knows that the process is a fraud--except the guy going through it--that's got to feel pretty bad.
Yep. This.

I know that uttering words that suggest that Belichick is part of the Man have not been taken too well here, but I admit that I find it a bit icky if it's true that Belichick knew Daboll had been hired before Flores had his Rooney interview. Belichick probably didn't even know the timing. Maybe he did. I just don't like the whole thing and really am not going to judge Flores for thinking it's all very icky too.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,443
Yep. This.

I know that uttering words that suggest that Belichick is part of the Man have not been taken too well here, but I admit that I find it a bit icky if it's true that Belichick knew Daboll had been hired before Flores had his Rooney interview. Belichick probably didn't even know the timing. Maybe he did. I just don't like the whole thing and really am not going to judge Flores for thinking it's all very icky too.
It feels icky certainly when thinking about it from Flores' perspective, which, of course, is legitimate. I'm wondering about the nature of human relationships. I am going to suppose that Belichick has a really good (maybe even a "close") relationship with the Giants and Mara. So let's say Mara calls BB and asks about Daboll, and BB gives his thoughts (obviously positive ones) on Daboll. Before hanging up, BB says, "Let me know how it goes." Mara says, "Ok, will do." A couple of days (however long it was) later, he texts BB and says, "Thanks for the talk about Daboll. We loved him and we're going with him." BB says, "Ok that's great. Congrats."

Now that doesn't sound "icky" to me. That sounds like normal human relationships where people are just...I don't know...behaving normally.

Of course I don't know if that's actually how that went down, but the way I described it just doesn't seem icky or wrong or immoral or anything like that.

And you could substitute Flores in there for Daboll, if indeed they asked BB about Flores. The same set of conversations could conceivably have gone just like that with Flores too. (it didn't because they apparently hired Daboll before even talking with Flores, but in theory BB's handling of it might have been the exact same, and it wouldn't be any more or less "icky" in that case, at least to me)
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,557
I'm not exonerating anything. I'm just pointing out that this is how the world of employment works pretty much everywhere, and it's not remotely a uniquely NFL problem.
How many other fields have 70% college educated Blacks as their featured employees and have 3-6% of Blacks as managers?

I’ll hang up and listen.