Fake-Fat Sunny

The Rooney Rule requires nothing of 75% of the population. 32 NFL owners have simply required of themselves that they move from their past practices which resulted in race biased decisions on HC hiring to instead invest in a system which makes an affirmative action and provides opportunity to those denied it under the old practices.

What some seem to be saying is that the Rooney Rule is unecesary even with the past results of there being few or no A-A coaches and even before the requirement to do at least one interview. The argument for the Rooney rile is to redress past discriminatory practices by NFL teams in GC hiring that resulted in quauified candidates like Dungy and Lewis having to wait longer than appeared merited to get a shot, and the failure until today apparently for an HC like Art Shell who ousted a good record of Ws and several playoff appearances (and did far better than Raider HCs immediately before and after him except for Gruden. I voted for neither options because rather than a quota of either white players or A-A coaches which the poll endorses, I prefer the opportunity driven system which the NFL has adopted.

) think you are right on target about it all starting in thr trenches> The switch announced by Jauron really heightens the probability that we will use our first on a DL player, probably a DT with run stopping chops who has some ability to pressure the QB by collapasing the pocket or blowing through the line, and likely Ngota from the bits I have seen about him. It also heightens the possibility that Adams stays, Though he is not known for being a run stuffer, he has the bulk to play this role and by all weve seen even well into the backside of his career he still has a quick first step where if he guess right he is in the QBs face or blows up the run in the backfield/ It interests me that some reacted to this annoucement by announcing the deaths as Bills of Milloy and Vincent when I think compared to the roles they were asked to played to make the zone blitz work neither was up to it this year this should/could be a new lease on life for the two of them. I would guess thatTV is the most likely keeper of the two since this scheme switch plays more to his pass coverage strengths and away from tackling responsibility for him as though all players must tackle, the zone blitz gave serious run stopping duty to both our safeties. While I think Milloy's experience will meet any additional problems he will have with more requirements to run long distances in the cover 2 rather than the zone blitz. The issue of his cap hit and the scheme going away from his tackling strength I think he is a likely cut. I had figured that this switch also will make Coy Wire smile as he will get a hair more time to make decisions though I still think he s a goner because he won't stay with a big salary primarily for ST duty. However. I had not given thought to the concept of him going bact LB duty which got him drafted in the first place. I still do not think he stays though as an LB since I think the cover 2 will likely increase the need for qood reads and decision making by the LBs.

The NFL mirrored the society which it existed with by practicing racial bias against men of A-A descent. Jusy to clarify the points of debate: 1. Do you feel thst society did not engage in both societal and governmental practices during the time period since its founding to some undefined point in its future by this question (some would argue that racial bias is still widely practiced, some would argue that it still exists but is not widely or significantly practices. I;m not arguing whether its wide practice ended at some point, just asking whether you agree that society did widely or signficantly practice racial bias at the point of inception for the NFL and through spme part of its history)? I feel that society did practice widespread or signficant racial bias against A-As which overlapped large portions of NFL history. 2. Do you feel that the NFL was separate from or immune from society's practices? I do not. Just as society practticed widespread or significant bias against A-As, so too did the NFL thtough a significant portion of its history. 3. What is the status of the MFL's practice of racial bias against A-A? I am not debating the status of US society's biased practices (some feel it still goes on, some feel their are mere pockets of occaisional bias against A-As, others feel that PC has run amuck and that the bias is now practiced against the majority US culture). Whatever, I'm saving that debate for PPP and I'm talking about racial bias against A-As in the NFL. My feeling is that clearly society reflected racially biased treatment well through the government's admission that such a bias existed in landmark decisions and acts such as Brown v. Board and the Voting Rights Act of 64 I will reference as part of this point but pass on discussion which distracts from the NFL discussion that President Clinton issued an Executive Order and President Bush reissued this Executive Order and confirmed it that their is a racial and economic bias in the distribution of environmental degradation in this country even today). My sense of the current status of racial bias against A-As is that in many ways it has lagged behind the recognitions of the broader society. This is not surprising since we are dealing with a relatively small number of incredibly wealthy owners and as a partnership has grown between the NFL and NFLPA since the union was beaten in the mid-80s and threatened to decertify itself. Rather than compete for players in a free market, the NFL agreed to a partnership with the NFLPA to restrain trade through mechanisms like the draft, the ban on underage players and the complex CBA. The development of this partnership paralleled events like the NFL finally showing a fuller commitment to winning teams by utilizing A-A athletes as QBs. Finally, at tje beginning of this season, the NFL and NFLPA reached consensus that the racist practices of the NFL against A-As which was reflected in the small number of A-A HCs needed to be changed. The NFL made a great leap forward toward improving the quality of the HC pool by setting up a committee under Owner Art Rooney which drove a process which rather thn taking the simplistic and I think method of hiring quotas as a solution, instead set-up or expanded a number of programs (calling 'em affirmative actions if you must label them) such as a A-A coaching internship program, education programs which presented the advantages of diversity in the NFL, and general outreach designed to increase the pool of qualified A-A candidates. Further, the NFL invoked the Rooney Rule which required by their agreement its member teams to interview at least 1 A-A candidate for HC. Yhey stood up for this rule when Matt Millen and Detroit were flagrant about violating it because it was clear without any process Millen wamted Mooch. The actions of potential A-A candidate coaches was interesting. Virtually all the qualified candidates refused to interview for an HC job there was not even a pretense they would get. They demonstrated to me that while many A-A candidates saw great value in even token interviews as it provided them with some training in going through the process, and introduced them into the good ol boy network in a job setting, there were some limitations to even taking the advantages given by token interviews. The NFL demonstrated that they were serious about the Rooney Rule, not through the chump change (or the team owner Fords) but through the enbarassment of being singled out by their peers for not taking the rule seriously (even taking it laughingly as it would have not been hard to do actual token interview if that had been their strategy. Millen completed the Lions looking like fools as he had to fire his anointed savior that he wanted so bad with over $10 million left to pay Mooch for whatever he wants. While this clusterthing was happening, the NFL saw an unprecedented hiring of A-A candidates for HC. While it is obvious that race is not a factor in the quality of HCs, it turned out that the men of A-A descent hired were quality coaches and men. The Rooney Rule at the very least coincided with outstanding performances getting Ws, making the playoffs and even winning divisions from folks like Lovie Smith and Marvin Lewis. This year has seen the number of A-A HCs remain static (as the only A-A changes were Edwards quitting the Jets to go to KC). Yet, even strident advocates of the Rooney Rule have reacted to this statistical occurence with the reactions that it was a burp rather than a trend. We'll see. Yes Virginia, I can more than comfortably say that the NFL has acted with racial bias against men of A-A descent who were good enough players and coaches to help teams win. Can I prove it in court? No, but it is because I or no one else has to because if the NFL had gone to court against Johnny Cochra, Jester Jackson and the often too loud or stupid voices fighting for a good fair thing (civil rights) suffice to say they were enough of a threat to win in court that the NFL made a deal which gave birth to the Rooney Rule some folks seem to hate or dislike. If one refuses to argue they were simply forced to make changes it is fine with me, as the other alternative is that the powers that be in the NFL acknowledged the unfairness of past acts and created the Rooney Rule to make up for the racial bias practiced against A-A players who now make-up a majority of players. The status ofthe NFL? Racist practices by intent of some and by effect but not intent of other. However, the clear intent embodied in the Rooney Plan and Rooney Rule is to redress the actions of discrimination caused in the past and to do this by filling the pipeline with qualified A-A applicants to join the Tony Dugy's, Marvin Lewiss' Lovie Smiths and yes even Art Shells of HCs of A0A descent qualified to deliver Ws with their team. These men, though shown to be more than qualified by the result accomplished with them as HC still had to fight through waits which seemed longer than someone of their skills should have gone through before getting hired (Dungy and Lewis) or not getting rehired even after posting a winning record and leading their team to multiple playoff berths (this fact is particularly interesting given the failure of Raider coaches generally except for Gruden to have much success with this team both immediately prior to and post Shell. one cn certainly point to particular coaching circumstances or events, or one can demand a level of proof higher than that in most courts and certainly far higher than in the public eye to prove racially biased NFL practices (if one wants though it really says more about the poster than thei issue to see folks dance on the head of that pin). Suffice to say that a level of proof at court levels while necessary in the heads of some people, it has not been necessary in reality as the NFL owners themselves created and have enforced the Rooney Rule and increas hiring of A-A HCs. The burden of proof is not on those to prove NFL racially biased practices which disadvantaged A-As. Yhe NFL has invoked and enforced the Rooney Rule designed redress past discrimination against A-A men. The burden of proof of reality is actually on those who dispute the reality of the NFL's ebrace of the Rooney Rule. So you assert there has been no racial bias in US society since the time paralleling the existence of the NFL? The NFL itself seems to think so and if you disagree with them then prove it. So you concede that little things like Jim Crow Laws and the gerrymandering and disenfranchisement which led to the Voting Rights Act of 64 do show there was some pervasive racial bias in society, but now you argue that the NFL was immune to this and there was no racial bias against A-As by the NFL? The NFL itselff seems to think so and if you disagree that the NFL has something to redress here then prove it. Let's say you also concede that there has been a significant history of racials bias against A-As un US society and also are willing to concede (perhaps grudgingly but it is hard to resist reality (the NFL also pursued the foul practices of society and yes the occurence of few to none A-As in NFL leadership position was due in some part to racial bias. However, you still reject the Rooney rule for some reason, even though the rule itself has only led to an extra interviewed requirement and the men who happened to be A-A hired as HCs inconjunction with this effort have virtually uniformly had above aveerage performance by their team. If you oppose the Rooney Rule feel free to have this opinion even though it has on the face of it forced no hiring of A-As and not cost anyone a job or even an interview that an owner would have decided to give them. It's fine for some folks to have opinions against the Rooney Approach and Rule, but the thing completely lacking in this thread are any arguments beyond opinion or over-hyoed hypotheticals against it. If you think it is bad beyond individual opinion then prove it/

Its not surprising to me to find advocates such as Johnnie Cochran or yourself displeased with the outcomes to date of the Rooney Rule. Though JC and his living allies might want a world in which the NFL HC pool looks like US society or the world it ain't gonna happen. Though he/they might have been miore satisfied with a quota system, (this likely would have brough incompetent HCs to the league (the NFL has already demonstrated that winning is not the only issue that drives HC hiring though their failure and slowness in hiring well qualified candidates who happen to be A-A so i am glad that the NFL has not taken the quota path) the NFL instead has pursued a system based on opportunity with the internships, education and outreach which are keys to the Rooney program and the interview requirement which is the Rooney Rule. Likewise, in addition to extremist like the Cochran ilk not getting what they wanted, folks who hold the other extreme that things should be like they always were are obviously disatisfied. This "soft" approach requiring interviews rather than mandating hires isstill too much for some, however the facts are that the partners of theNFL and NFLPA have reached aggreement and a bacic understanding that past NFL practices which produced a racially biased outcome cannot stand. Old practices cannot stand because the NFL demonstrated itself in quite recent history to be unable to employ A-As in leadership positions like QB (though once this taboo was broken, it was quickly demonstrated that these A-A candidates were quite capable of playing winning QB) and still seem to be unable to employ A-As as HC despite the coincidence of outstanding success by the few A-A HCs. Old practices cannot stand because the many A-A players have expressed frustration with a feeling and statistical showing that they are barred from HC positions due to a factor which has nothing to do with good coaching. Old practices cannot stand because this product is best sold not only with a generally happy work force, but without the distraction that the lack of A-A HCs placed before the public. Some do not like it because life changes and the privileged they benefitted from is going. Some do not like it because the changes are not coming fast enough for them. I suspect most are pretty happy though to see a moderate approach like the Rooney Rule coincide with some positive changes in the HC pool (diversity + winning results by most of the new A-A hires) and present some real hope for the growing partnership between the NFL and NFLPA. Its not perfect, but it clearly looks much better to me.

Looking at the numbers is good (though as one who loves numbers and stats I am pretty aware of their limtations and that though looking at the numbers is good they generally are not conclusive or perfect). However, when one looks at the numbers it is important to chose correctly the pools you are measuring by. Using a broadly dwfined applicant pool based on the gneral population is simply a flat out incorrect stat to choose for measuring the intended goals, intended, probable or even possible outcomes of this program. Among the several arguments which demonstrate use of this broadly defined general population stat produces results which make no sense: 1. If the goal of the Rooney Rule were actually to make the HC pool look like America, then a little over 50% of the HCs shoul be women. This obviously is not the goal or intent of the program so claims that it is are false. If you want to at least take a nod at reality (which the concept that the goal of the Rooney Rule is to make the HC ranks look like America is no where close to reality) one might claim that while it does not apply to women, the goal is to address past racial transgressions by society overall. This is not the goal either. The NFL has been quite specific that interviewing Norm Chow does not count toward the Rooney Rule. This is because though there is an unfortunate history of US government approved discrimination aqainst orientals (exploiting Chinese labor to build the railroads, Japanese internment) bringing in more oriental HCs would be good for diversity in American society, but accomplshing this lofty task is not the goal of the Rooney Rule. The Rooney Rule (and most importantly the programs of internships, education and outreach that surround it rather than the interview requirement) is designed to: 1. Redress a history and pattern of discrimination against A-A who today make up a majority of NFL players which was felt by many and demonstrated in the longtime refusal of NFL teams to hire A-As in NFL leadership positions like QB and HC. 2. Feed the pipeline of qualified and strong interviewing candidates by fostering more interviews of A-A HC candidates. Measuring the Rooney Rule for success by comparing the number of people of color, A-As orsocietally discriminated against people like women is simply incorrect in terms of the intent behind it or how the NFL measures its success.

Definitely there are other issues of concern for how effective the Bills cover 2 will be: 1. We need to get some significant pass rush pressure out of the DL in order to make the cover 2 work at its best (or even adequately with the current question marks on the DL. I think Jauron's endorsement of the cover 2 heightens the probability of us going for Ngota if he has any kind of a first step or has shown the ability to pressure up the middle. It does also bring the idea of us going DE into play if the braintrust judges their to be a monster pass rusher out there. 2. I think this raises interesting issues regarding Milloy. he has the experience to be a good cover 2 safety, he has seemed a little too prone to injury and nicks on the backside of his career, so asking him to be pivotal to the cover 2 rather than the zone blitz makes sense. However, his rep for hitting rather than speed when the cover 2 will call for him to cover a lot of ground and his cap hit which is higher than Vincent's may put him at greater risk of being cut than TV though I think the cover 2 would be a boon for him. 3. The tough thing for the LBs at that this will require them to do a lot of good reads and decide whether they should be pinching in for run support or doing pass coverage. I think Fletcher is probably the least of our worries at LB. A. We'll see how TKO comes back from the injury. B. We'll see how young Crowell does in a new D and with a lot more read responsibility. C. Fletcher was D captain because he seemed to always know what was going on and what was the right thing to do even before the refs. Fletcher's game is about and his motor due to his limited size, he was often covering folks downfield deeper than should be expected for an LB already. We'll see.

OK I'll quit using this example as I gave a fale impression from its use.

I'd say tbe former is probably true but has little top do with this issue. The latter is true in some cases like the NFL, but overall, there are so many specific cases which cut different ways there is no generally applicable rule to be found here. Again speaking in general, I tend to personally judge discriminatory acts from the perspective of the victim rather than the discriminator. Thus, I do view injustices against women generally more harshly than I view injustices against men, because overall I think women have gotten a much rawer deal in our society and have a much harder time or more to put up with than men. Likewise, I tend to view injustices against a race like A-As who as a race were subjected slavery by America, the Japanese who were subjected to interment during WWII bv America, Native Americans who our government perpetually made treaties with and broke them and other groups who were subjected to (wjat I consider serious) governmental rather than societal abuse by individuals abit more harshly than other injustices. Speaking as someone who is not a member of groups our American government in our name even before I was born subjected to governmental discrimination, I feel that we as a country still owe them and I do not begrudge our country apologizing to them or even raising my tax dollars to pay them back something. Obviously i would not support confiscatory taxes to pay back this debt (actually we have already paid off the Japanese still living who were interred and apologized, but this was such a small pittance on my taxes I did not even notice. I do not see us paying back any direct reparations to A-As as a country because none of them are still alive. However, given that official discrimination continued long after slavery through Jim Crow laws and ongoing governmental acts (which I think the Supreme Court has dealt with well by requiring special scrutiny of some governmental functions, it is fine with me that continuing action or focus on this front occurs. As far as Native Americans, I think it would result in an unacceptable to me confisctory tax to pay back all that the US ripped off from the Indians. It would be fair to pay them back but I am not willing to be fair about this debt. I think the question of discrimination against Native Americans remains a blight on our country's soul. All this being said, this is ideological stuff just like much of the way you seem to be judging this NFL issue. Just as my feeling about discrimination against women, against A-As or N-As has nothing really to do with this issue, i think your ideological feelings about workplace employment seem to have a general ideological drive which does not apply to this or many workplace cases. General perspectives apply to general things, but this is a specific case where specific rules or a specific approach which may differ from the general are the best approaches. I suggest that one may usefully be guided by ideology, but one should realize that general ideology should guide but not be applied in lockstep to particular cases.

No it does not seem unfair because i think this view refuses to ignore the reality of years if discrimination by the NFL and society against men of A-A descent. It would be nice if we could just declare discrimination based on race wrong and stop it now, but the reality is that people do get better (I beleive prople mostly are fundamentally good but thats a PPP discussion) but it takes time and we are not all perfect. I think it is naive to assume otherwise. In addition, the history of discriminatory NFL practices (the long waits imposed on Tony Dungy and Marvin Lewis, the failure to rehire Art Shell after he experienced success) is so recent and current that strong action is merited. The Rooney Rule is actually a relatively mild action (quotas would be draconian and stupid IMHO) and is one based on assuring oppoetunity for qualified applicants. I see few problems with it.

No the NFL should not adopt a Rooney Rule for Poles because the NFL has no record of discrimanation against Poles (unless you know about some plot I do not know about). Again, the goal behind the Rooney rule is not to make the HC pool look like America (if that were the goal then hiring Norm Chow or making sure a hair over 50% of all HCs were women would be the measure). The Rooney Rule sets out to amelitorate decades of practices by the NFL which resulted in qualified men who happened to be of A-A descent simply not being considered for jobs like HC or even just QB. I cam see how some folks like The Dean can get frustrated and lash out at comments like yours because they simply seem to miss the point. The Rooney Rule is a practice put in place by THE NFL itself to remediate past discriminatoru practices that it admits to itself. The Rooney Rule is far more than just an interview requirement, it is series pf affirmative action initiatives designed to increase the pool of qualified A-A applicants. More than a question of ideology, the Rooney Rule and its programs are a self imposed management tool designed to foster good productions and feelings from its worker pool which is majority A-A and well aware of the NFL and society's troubled past. It is also designed to improved the quality of the NFL product by improving the pool of qualified HCs. It appears to have accomplished these goals so far (in part due to the discplining of idiots like Matt Millen and in part due to the somewhat coincidence of success of men like Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith).

By repetitively I meant twice in this case. If instead it is taken to mean 3 times or more, then feel free to swutch my wording to mean twice as I think it makes no difference in the point I am making. Alternately if the rehiring of Kotite by NYJ (where he led them to 3-13 and 1-24 records) was not stupid after he dragged some great Philly teams down to 8-8 snd 7-9 records feel free to make that case.

True but many ALSO view it as a particular problem because it discriminates both against qualified white coaches AND it discriminates against qualified A-A coaches. As one who thinks that life in general is not fair abd given the rarified la-la land of NFL HC jobs though offensive I have less problem with the discrimination against coaches of white descent. However, given the NFL's quite recent (to the extent of probably being ongoing as far as HC jobs go) hisory of discrimination against people of A-A descent I think that this issue merits action on the NFL'a part. I'm glad that they have adopted an approach based on fostering greater opportunity rather than a senseless addiction to quotas as a method fro addressing this issue. I do not think the fact that the good ol boy network has both discriminated against some qualified white and virtually all qualified A-A is mutually exclusive at all. If you have a problem addressing the past discrimination against A-As that is another issue and you should say so if you do as it would clarify things.

The Cover 2 should help Vincent over the zone blitz in several ways: 1, In the zone blitz tackling RBs is one of the primary jobs of the safety whereas in the Cover 2 takling WRs and downfield receivers will be his job (hough his primary job will be blocking and INTing passes. Admit it or not, TV will have a much easier time tackling even a top quality WR (like a Moulds) going for a catch or even trying to RAC than he will Caddillac Williams. In the zone blitz, the safeties have a primary duty of run stopping when it is sending the LB in on the blitz or a DL player is dropping back in zone coverage. 2. In the zone blitz, the safeties play closer to the LOS rather than further back. While a safety might have a tougher against a rusher with a head of steam rushing toward TV in the Cover 2, such cases are unlikely to occur unless there has been a total breakdown in the Bills front 7. TV will mostly be called upon to tackle players who he is covering as the go for a pass rather than someone rushing the ball. 3. This will be the second full season (and really about half a season playing the safety position for TV. He may lose another step as he gets older, but the case in the NFL is experienced players find a step through experience. Unless he has gotten so old he ends up looking like Eddie Robinson trying to tackle Pennington, it is not irrational to hope the additional experience at safety will make him a better tackler. It may not when all the factors come into play, but it easily could also. Because though he was not great in 05 (a middlin number of tackles among Bills D starters, ok return yardage) but he far from sucked (tied for the team lead in INTs and in FRs) I think most Bills fans would be pretty reasonably hopeful his tackling in 06 will not elicit many real complaints or the usual whining.