Sea Speed said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

redag06 said:

---

I've interviewed for several jobs knowing I wasn't getting the job.

And a few of them I knew I wasn't getting because of the color of my skin. How about them apples Flores.

---

Which is wrong and there should be consequences.

---

What if he's white? That still your answer?

---

I'm sure you think this is a gotcha, and in a perfect world, the answer is always yes.

The problem is that the world isn't perfect and the only real answer should be 'it depends.'

Quote:

---

We know he didn't do the first because it's not in his lawsuit. If he had confronted them on whether the job was already taken at his interview, that would have definitely been included.

As for the second scenario, what about anything he has done or said since he went public would give you the idea he went into an interview he thought was a sham but still put on a smile and tried to knock it out of the park? He does not give off that attitude.

And, look, I admittedly have no idea but what I've seen and heard from him, he doesn't really seem capable of gladhanding with people he's internally despising.

---

We have no idea why he would have chosen not to include a confrontation in the lawsuit and it's foolish to assume that the lawsuit covers everything in its' entirety. I am not assuming it happened, but its not proof that it didn.t

As far as the second scenario goes, that's quite a judgement of the man...and not something you would accept someone saying of you personally. why is the burden of proof to assume that he didn't do that? Why is that the standard?

i think this is the frustration of the black coach - he feels he isn't on an even playing field.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

We know he didn't do the first because it's not in his lawsuit. If he had confronted them on whether the job was already taken at his interview, that would have definitely been included.

As for the second scenario, what about anything he has done or said since he went public would give you the idea he went into an interview he thought was a sham but still put on a smile and tried to knock it out of the park? He does not give off that attitude.

And, look, I admittedly have no idea but what I've seen and heard from him, he doesn't really seem capable of gladhanding with people he's internally despising.

---

We have no idea why he would have chosen not to include a confrontation in the lawsuit and it's foolish to assume that the lawsuit covers everything in its' entirety. I am not assuming it happened, but its not proof that it didn.t

As far as the second scenario goes, that's quite a judgement of the man...and not something you would accept someone saying of you personally. why is the burden of proof to assume that he didn't do that? Why is that the standard?

i think this is the frustration of the black coach - he feels he isn't on an even playing field.

---

All we can do at this point is draw the most resonable conclusions we can based on the info we have. Considering all that is included in his suit, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that if he had confronted the Giants in his interview, it would be in there. I mean, he takes the time to detail Elway's timeliness and appearance, but leaves out the Giants' response when he confronts them about a sham interview? I find that extremely unlikely.

I don't understand the value judgment. And you can absolutely say it about me. All I am saying is, if he truly believed it was a sham interview, I don't think he could completely hide his disgust of that and make his absolute best impression. I couldn't either. No idea what you're upset about with that.

Quote:

---

All we can do at this point is draw the most resonable conclusions we can based on the info we have. Considering all that is included in his suit, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that if he had confronted the Giants in his interview, it would be in there. I mean, he takes the time to detail Elway's timeliness and appearance, but leaves out the Giants' response when he confronts them about a sham interview? I find that extremely unlikely.

---

Likiness isn't the standard. You were using it as proof that it didn't happen. A fair question to ask Brian? Sure. But its not a smoking gun.

Quote:

---

I don't understand the value judgment. And you can absolutely say it about me. All I am saying is, if he truly believed it was a sham interview, I don't think he could completely hide his disgust of that and make his absolute best impression. I couldn't either. No idea what you're upset about with that.

---

What knowledge do you have of him that leads you to believe he could not? You said "you couldnt either" - what life experience do you have that's analogous to his that suggestions that you are able to place yourself in his shoes and surmise his experience based on that? What gives you the ability to accurate judge his attitude based on this?

it's not a "being upset" thing. It's a basis of argument thing. You are making some pretty strong assumptions about him and the nature of the case.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

All we can do at this point is draw the most resonable conclusions we can based on the info we have. Considering all that is included in his suit, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that if he had confronted the Giants in his interview, it would be in there. I mean, he takes the time to detail Elway's timeliness and appearance, but leaves out the Giants' response when he confronts them about a sham interview? I find that extremely unlikely.

---

Likiness isn't the standard. You were using it as proof that it didn't happen. A fair question to ask Brian? Sure. But its not a smoking gun.

Quote:

---

I don't understand the value judgment. And you can absolutely say it about me. All I am saying is, if he truly believed it was a sham interview, I don't think he could completely hide his disgust of that and make his absolute best impression. I couldn't either. No idea what you're upset about with that.

---

What knowledge do you have of him that leads you to believe he could not? You said "you couldnt either" - what life experience do you have that's analogous to his that suggestions that you are able to place yourself in his shoes and surmise his experience based on that? What gives you the ability to accurate judge his attitude based on this?

it's not a "being upset" thing. It's a basis of argument thing. You are making some pretty strong assumptions about him and the nature of the case.

---

Quite frankly, I have no idea what you're even talking about now. All I said is Flores doesn't seem like a guy who would put on a happy face around people he believes are racists. And I draw that conclusion based upon his lawsuit and subsequent interviews where he makes it clear that the whole point of this is to expose it. Why this bothers you, I can't fathom.

The System said:

---

Then just call it a weak ass argument, I'm cool with that. But you absolutely compared the two when you said "it's the same **** people say…." and I don't appreciate that. I have never and would question why a victim of sexual assault waited to come forward. Don't put me in that camp. That's wrong and inflammatory. Let's just stick to the specifics about Flores and this situation.

---

You're right. Wasn't my intent, but it was out of line. Apologies.

Well Flores also alleged that BB was instrumental in getting Daboll the giants job. I don't really understand his reasoning of being upset with that. BB also put in a good word for Flores when he applied at Miami and helped him get that job. Is BB not allowed to do the same for another former coach on his staff? The more that comes out, it just seems that Flores was hurt, upset, and embarrassed because he didn't get his dream job in NY and a few chicken hawk lawyers preyed on that emotion. Now it's a downhill snowball that he can't stop. He didn't seem at all comfortable in that ESPN interview.

The System said:

---

Well Flores also alleged that BB was instrumental in getting Daboll the giants job. I don't really understand his reasoning of being upset with that. BB also put in a good word for Flores when he applied at Miami and helped him get that job. Is BB not allowed to do the same for another former coach on his staff? The more that comes out, it just seems that Flores was hurt, upset, and embarrassed because he didn't get his dream job in NY and a few chicken hawk lawyers preyed on that emotion. Now it's a downhill snowball that he can't stop. He didn't seem at all comfortable in that ESPN interview.

---

Yeah. That doesn't make much sense. And his assertion that that is part of the problem is bizarre. References are part of the problem? I mean, Belichick employed both. It's hardly surprising that teams considering them might reach out to a former employer. Particularly, if that former employer is considered one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. And I bet Belichick gave a glowing review of both.

The interview is helpful for determining a guy's philosophy and plan for success. But it's only a piece. A retread like Flores has a whole body of work out there and network to get information from. This nonsense about required interviews is largely dog and pony show stuff

I agree. And before Flores went scorched earth, I was hoping he'd get another job somewhere. There's nothing wrong with taking a step back and being a DC for a year or two. Coaches do it all the time and then get another shot. Flores now comes off as entitled and thinks teams should just hand him the reigns, when there's a body of evidence to suggest he was in over his head. A lot of it was media driven with people acting like Miami parted ways with Vince Lombardi.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

The interview is helpful for determining a guy's philosophy and plan for success. But it's only a piece. A retread like Flores has a whole body of work out there and network to get information from. This nonsense about required interviews is largely dog and pony show stuff

---

You are right that it's a dog and pony show, but not for the reasons you think.

This tells me Goodell is trying to get out in front of something.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to all clubs this morning regarding coaching diversity and admitted “the results have been unacceptable.” pic.twitter.com/Hyhwu0mEJY

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) February 5, 2022

Macarthur said:

---

This tells me Goodell is trying to get out in front of something.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to all clubs this morning regarding coaching diversity and admitted “the results have been unacceptable.” pic.twitter.com/Hyhwu0mEJY

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) February 5, 2022

---

Maybe. Sounds like run-of-the-mill corporate DEI gobbledygook to me.

yep, where a company makes a big fuss about something, etc, etc..,

but the plan is not to change anything

The only black coach hired in the last 2 years was David Culley. That's 15 coaches hired, 14 are white with 3 to go. Texans are criticized for that hire.

Now, as the Texans consider hiring Josh McCown, all we hear from the local media is how unqualified he is. Kinda like Brian Flores or Zack Taylor, when they go their first job.

Texas Tech could have hired Lincoln Riley from their own staff but have gone thru several lesser coaches since Riley had no experience at the time. Mccown could be the answer.

When are they going to get more white players.

Oh wait.

MookieBlaylock said:

---

I mean the coaching industry overall is full of overpaid high school gym teachers

Most hires are terrible regardless of race

---

Agree. It's largely a collection of meatheads, and the biggest key to success was who you knew coming out of college. It's also why it cracks me up when some think these guys are geniuses that you can't criticize.

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

The only black coach hired in the last 2 years was David Culley. That's 15 coaches hired, 14 are white with 3 to go. Texans are criticized for that hire.

Now, as the Texans consider hiring Josh McCown, all we hear from the local media is how unqualified he is. Kinda like Brian Flores or Zack Taylor, when they go their first job.

Texas Tech could have hired Lincoln Riley from their own staff but have gone thru several lesser coaches since Riley had no experience at the time. Mccown could be the answer.

---

It's not exactly the same in terms of being unqualified based on their coaching history. Taylor and Flores were at least in the NFL coaching circle with Flores working for the Patriots for years and Taylor working under McVay for few years and some other NFL teams in the past. McCown has no NFL or NCAA coaching experience at all.

Well they are tanking for 2 more seasons so why not McCown

He will be going on year 3 and if he sucks get rid of him

And the faux outrage of the media that called it Tanking for Tua the entire year
Everyone new they were rebuilding and losing is the only way to do it
They just screwed up and took Tua over Herbert and the Bengals tanked for Burrow

If they are tanking for another two years, then what was the point of firing David Culley?

They could've just brought McCown on as an assistant in the meantime.

because Culley was next level terra-bad --- and even the Texans front office didn't think he would be that bad.

recall his declining a penalty to punt on 4th & 2 in his first game. He never recovered after that

Radio this morning was saying Flores claims he didn't get the Texans job because of the lawsuit. He must be shocked. Apparently suing your potential employer isn't a good way to get hired. Did he think the lawsuit was gonna get him a job?

In reading about this, this was the part I found most interesting. While it is true the NFL has made strides, it seems like there's still some problematic numbers staring at them....


Minority coaches also have "substantially" shorter head coaching tenures than whites, the paper found. That matches up with data from ESPN's Luke Knox, who found that for coaches with tenures of five or fewer seasons and a winning record, black head coaches averaged 2.2 seasons while white coaches lasted 3.2 seasons. A 2019 analysis by The Undefeated found that minority coaches are more likely (52.4% to 28.7%) than whites to be on the "hot seat," an ESPN metric that measures the likelihood of a coach being fired for going 4-12 based on a number of factors. A 2004 study by researcher Janice Fanning Madden found that black head coaches historically win one more additional game per season than white coaches, yet the Global Sport Institute paper found that outgoing black coaches (four years) have shorter coaching tenures than whites (4.18 years).


https://theundefeated.com/features/new-study-minority-coaches-still-fare-worse-during-nfl-hiring-process