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.

Yes, change must occur for a range of reasons which include: 1. The racial disparity in hiring where few or none of the onfield leadership positions of NFL teams smacks of unfairness and a lack of opportunity. 2. It is quite apparent that not only is race not a limitation on the chances of success of an HC, but in practice given the records of success (as measured in W/Ls an making the playoffs but not SB wins but simply wait and it will happen as more A-As get an opportunity to HC) o HCs of A-A descent. 3. it is an emplyee management problem when a majority of the employees rightfully feel that they cannot achieve the highest on field position they are qualified to fill if the NFL continued its practice of hiring none or few A-A coaches. 4. The argument that people do not believe that NFL teams would not hire a man of A-A descent who can help them win appears pretty doubtable when the NFL consistenly makes a practice of hiring HCs repetitively like a Rich Kotite or who seem less qualified like a Marty Morningwheg or the new guy hired this year as an HC with little previous coaching experience. Given that well qualified men like Tony Dungy or Marvin Lewis have had to wait for years (and far longer than less qualified applicants) before getting there shot creates real doubt about the proposition that NFL owners are solely motivated by a desire to win when failed HCs get jobs over these candidates who once hired lead their teams to the playoffs and ratchet up the # of team Ws. There are myriad more reasons, but based simply on a need to redress years of unfairness toward A-As by the NFL andthe desire to change these perceptions of past reality quickly because there are so many A-A employees, change must occur.

They are separate issues certainly, but they are issues which are intensely related in terms of racial bias in the hiring outcomes don't you think? The Rooney Ruke as an attempt to change the situation strikes me as a far better approach to solving the problem of a racial disparity in hiring practices by the NFL than some slavish devotion to quotas.

You are right on target that the solution is about qualification and the NFL is trying to figure out a way to deal with the seeming real world occurence that objective qualifications unfortunately does not seem to be what the hiring of NFL HCs is all about. There is the question about to what degress the factor of race impacts NFL HC hiring decisions. Unfortunately, it was clearly a factor in American society's general judgment about hiring issues through much of its history. As an important part of society, the NFL was not immune to this problem. Society fortunately has progressed from its beginning when African-Americans were deemed 3/4 of a person by our constitution. As a product (or by-product in some views) of the Civil War the practice ended as part of the law with several amendments to the US Constitution. Yet, though ended de jure, the de facto policy of racial discrimination continued as seen in the Jim Crow laws, and was reflected in a clear pattern of measurabble racial inequity which could be seen in a racial discrepancy between the population of pools of qualified applicants and the pools of those chosen to receive a variety of societal benefits. For example, even today when one looks at the pool of applicants for loans from banks, even when one compares the loans received by racial groups one find a racial disparity when you compare people of the same economic background and levels. This ame effect is found when one looks at the distribution of environmental degradation. For example, a mid 80s report by the United Church of Christ looked at the distribution of hazardous waste sites across the country. Through US census data, one can determine the race, income and various demographic details of the population of a particular zip code. The U.S. EPA also has lists of the location of hazardous waste sites which can be divided by zip code. This study found that the best predictor of whether one lives in the same zip code as a hasardous waste site is race. These findings were met with some questioning and resistance from a number of sources who asked or claimed that the division was in fact driven by income and as there is a racial disparity by income in this society it explains the racial discrepancy. However, a series of report culminating with an exhaustive examination sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation in the early 90s looked at 63 national or large regional studies of a variety of economic disparties. 75% of these studies (performed by a wide variety of national governmental, scientific, academic, not for profit and business groups) found an income bias in their distribution. However, 88% found a racial bias in their distribution. Interestingly, most studies found a bias in both areas and 62 of 63 found a bias in one area or the other. The one study which found no bias was performed by Waste Management Inc. the largest hazardous waste company in the world. At any rate, for whatever reason it seems statistically clear that there is a race based disparity in how the advantages of our society and the disadvantages of modern living are distributed in society. I lay out these off-topic point to describe the context of the country the NFL operates within. One could pretty clearly see for whatever the reason might be that the NFL also had a racial disparity in the individuals chosen for leadership positions. This was true as there were none or few A-A QBs until the late 80s or early 90s. In the early part of this very decade there were few HCs of A-A descent. The NFL has taken what I see as good steps toward addressing this issue of racial disparitt throught its development and implementation of the Rooney Rule which require eact team to interview at least one qualified candidate of A-A descentfor HC openings. The NFL appears to have done this for a variety of reasons (some folks wanted to as they felt any racial disparity in HC hiring, the racial result and nature of past NFL hiring and employment practices, and the small number of A-A HC as this century began by any standard was un-American and anathema to them. Others in the NFL hierachy were likely motivated by employee management concerns as the vast majority of the players are of A-A descent. Others may well have been motivated by PC concerns, The reasons are different for each individual but these differences do not matter as under the leadership of folks like Dan Rooney things were going to change regarding HC hiring. The NFL seeks to reverse a history of past racist practices targeted at and visited upon the numerous MFL players who were A-A. It is for this reason that it simply misses the point to measure success in hiring by the Rooney rule as being measure by the demograhics of the US population. The Rooney Rule does not seek to achieve a goal of making the HC pool look like America (if it did then a touch over 50% of the coaches would be women). The goal of the Rooney rule is to cause there to be fair representation off the % of HCs of A-A descent and the population of A-A players. It does this to redress a clear history of not hiring A-As in positions of leadership on team's despite race not being a factor we want to use to determine hiring (this notion is clearly reinforced by the success of men of A-A descent when awarded positions such as QB and HC). Those who claim that the Rooney Rule has suceeded because the % of A-A HC hiring mirrors or exceeds the % of people of A-A descent in society are misguided in understanding these measures at best and simply fatuous at worse. American society does aspire to the goals articulated by MLK that one day race will not matter. It will not be a factor in the hiring of HCs. However, to insist that the real world impacts of past racial discrimination should simply be ignored does not take into account the real world racial discrimimation of the recent past where men of A-A descentt had no fair opportunity or career path to achieve the highest on field postion of HC regardless of their qualitifications. The important part of the Rooney Rule strikes me as not being the interview requirement which is the rule itself, but actually the general approach which creates minority NFL coaching internships designed to full the pipeline of qualified A-A applicants. Rather than pursue what I would see as a wrong-headed policy of racial quotas of hiring more A-A HCs regardless of qualification or hiring more white players regardless of qualification, I would instead choose the current NFL policy of internships and activities designed to increase the number of qualified applicants. This is reinforced by the Rooney Rule which the league has mandated upon itself to interview at least one qualified A-A applicant for HC. This approach deal with the fact that though clearly former players are a large part of the pool of qualified applicants, it is far from the total pool. Qualified applicants both of A-A and of other descent (and I suspect one day soon even a woman) can be found who do not have NFL player experience. Thus seeking a one-one correlation between the % of A-A players and HCs is not a description of fairness. However, the former player pool is such a viable source of qualified applicants and the former player pool is at or will soon be above 50%, the days in the early 2000s where merely two or so HCs out of 30 were of A-A descent and quite likely even today's #s where roughly 20% of HCs are of A-A descent represents a statistical disparity which smacks of the past effects of racist hiring practices in the NFL. I like the progress experiecenced under the Rooney Rule of seeing qualified applicants like Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith get HC jobs. These men in no way have achieved success because they were of A-A descent, but I think it is pretty clear (at least to me) that the lack of hiring of A-As historically by the NFL had a role to play in the failure of Lewis to land a job for a couple of years and the long wait folks like Tony Dungy experienced before they finally landed an HC job. So I disagree with both suggestions from the original post because I do not think that the simple employment of quotas be it for more A-A HCs or for nore white players achieves a good result in terms of the product or in fairness and equity. Its too bad if it happens that a qualified white applicant gets passed over for an HC job because an NFL team forced to merely interview an A-A candidate picks the A-A over him. However, if he has a problem he wants to blame someone for, then blame unqualified or less qualified white candidates like Rich Kotite who got HC jobs in the past over both more qualified white and A-A candidates. it was the repeated hiring and good ol boy bias toward unqualified white candidates which was the problem.

Simon. I like your cut on this and I agree with you that I am looking forward with interest to see how TV adapts to playing the safety position with a season+ under his belt and doing his job within a Cover 2 scheme that should be quite favorable to his background and skillset. I think he could well fail to be adequate if the age bug sneaks up on him suddenly as it sometimes does with folks. However, I think folks who simply declare he sucks are not properly evaluating the reality that playing the zone bliz simply demanded he take responsibilities (be a main cog in run stopping and not focus on his CB skills) that were not the best part of his game. The fact he did register a team leading INT total and was around the ball enough to tie for the team lead in FRs are reasonable indicators that age has not completely overwhelmed him yet. However, one reaction I had to your post was that though the Gray scheme and D sucked in 05 I think you are being a bit too harsh if you really feel that: "there is just no way you can be an effective secondary when you never have guys engaging receivers at the LOS." I agree if you alter that to say its veru hard (maybe impossible) to have the BEST performing secondary when you never engage receivers at the line, however, it is merely reality which had the Bills D as #2 statistically in the league with Gray running soft coverage as part of his zone blitz in 04. I think the facts say that there is no way one can be effective using this coverage is wrong. We heard the same complaints about numerous Bills team's under 'bend but don't break' Corey where the Ds were not the best at all, but they and their secondaries were effective. The strongly related issue you mention that I do not think the facts support is the distinction you draw between LeBeau and Gray. I think there is little real question about the fact that LeBeau is a better DC than Gray. However, I think complaints that Gray has no idea what he is doing or that he is completely ineffective are in fact reduced to baseless whining by the realities: 1. I also expected there to be a big drop-off in the effectiveness of the Bills D from 03 to 04 with the loss of LeBeau, but the Bills D proved me wrong with a solid performance up until a LeNeau D (and ST and O) beat the pants off the Bills in the final game. Part of this may be explained by the weaker competition the schedule gave us during the streak last year, but this is only part as the Bills D not only did not backslide but actually produced better #s last year under Gray than they did under LeBeau/Gray. 2. One might try to claim that this result was merely due to the leftover LeBeau effect and he deserves the credit and not Gray for last year. However, LeBeau was gone and has no role in building gameplans for last year's opponents, no role in making in game adjustments last year and no role in recalibrating and retraining the team over the bye week last year. I thought the Bills would be OK with the leftover effects of the zone-blitz inventor but definitely less productive. Facts are they did what they were supposed to do against weaker opposition and in fact were more productive under Gray and than the model under Gray/LeBeau. 3. I also think that Gray deserves kudos for his work with LeBeau in 03. I was advocating canning GW back then even after he HC'ed the team to an 8-8 record after a 3-13 season, I certainly was more than ready to say bye-bye to Gray as well, I had assumed that Gray only kept the DC job because it would be really hard to justify keeping GW around if after canning his OC the first year, you canned his DC the second. However, I would flat out say it was very impressive how quickly Gray mastered understanding and implementing the zone blitz when he kept the play calling duties as DC in 03. I begam to conclude that actually much of the blame for our horrendous D effectiveness in 01 and 02 actually lay with our attempt to implement the GW designed TN D with Buffalo. Gray deserves his fair share of blame for this as he was the DC and should have massaged and taken a stand against GW if he demanded we run a D which depended upon having Jevon Kearse and Blaine Bishop talents at LDE and SS (Chidi Ahanatou and Raion Hill just could not cut it and most could see this even from outside). Yet Gray proved to me in 03 when he mastered the LeBeau scheme well enough to call the D plays, that he was not wed to the TN scheme. He added to this when without LeBeau the Bills D remained at least as productive as it had been with Gray taking the sole lead on gameplanning, game adjustments and teaching. Am I glad that we are moving away from the zone-blitz and the soft CB coverage it requires (even with LeBeau at the helm) because the CBs are on an island and the safties are run stopping rather than backing up the CBs. You bet! However, I have seen enough football to know that while it is hard to be the best with the zone-blitz LeBeau/Gray and then Gray alone showed you could be effective. This does raise the question then what happened to this D in 05. My sense is: 1. Opponents had a bunch of tape of Gray and his tendencies. I think opponents gameplanned well for us and particularly once injuries tightened up our ability to bring forth numrous packages and be unpredictable we suffered a lot, 2. We played badly. i think a key to this team is that the D in particular lost its edge and belief in itself when it became clear that TD was more interested in using this season as a training camp for JP than simply givng us our best chance to win (even if our best chance would have been a bad chance with Bledsoe). 3. The PW loss had a bigger effect on our run stopping ability than i expected. This case showed one of the limitations of stats. pW played fewer than 2/3 of the downs in 04 sohe seemed quite replaceable. Edwards was quite productive as a reserve in 04 so it at least was not unbelievable (though I was pretty firmly in the non-believer camp for his prospects as a starter, but took solace in the hope Anderson might step up. Crowell also did a surprisingly good job for TKO, but TKO is TKO and this was a big personnel loss (though actually runners were ripping us even before the end of TKO's season. None of this lets Gray off the hook as he is ultimately responsible for the performance and he was not even adequate running a D with these problems (everyone has problems in this league). However, these specific factors and a team which proved to be in general meltdown explain the 05 breakdown to me. The claim that it happened just because or even mostly because Gray is a bad coach does not strike me as accurate. Ignoring the production of what was an effective (though not the best) D under Gray/LeBeau and Gray alone in 04 simply ignores all the facts IMHO.

I think we are closing in on an adequate assessment of Vincent and D play last year. First, thank you for acknowledging that I went to the stats NOT TO PROVE Vincent was a great or even very good player, but went to them because they fairly strongly inciate he did not suck. It's probably simply semantics (which is really all we have in the written words of these posts) but I would not even asert that Vincent was a solid player last year as I do not think anyone on the Bills D was a solid player last year because the D results were so bad. I think it is reasonable to say that Bills defenders like Fletcher who were active and all over the field, and who amassed good stats played well within a very flawed unit. I think it is reasonable to say that Schobel showed great flexibility in both wracking up some nice sack numbers and also doing pass coverage with far more athleticism than most DL players. I think it is reasonable to say that McGee showed flashes of brilliance mostly as a solid kick returner but also his team leading INT numbers and solid INT return #s bode well for the future for him. As far as Vincent goes, his team leading INT #s in conjunction with his small but still tied for the team lead in fumble recovery numbers point to specific contributions to the team which exceed that of most other Bills defenders. However, his age, and the ongoing reports of some of lousy tackling by Vincent point to part of the problems of the Ds and his lack of production last year. The important thing for the Bills is to ask the question of what about next season. Vincent has a number of real negatives that must be factored in: 1. He is 34 and well into the backside of his NFL career. 2. He will have a significant (but less than Milloy's) cap hit next year. 3. He has another big job as Pres of the NFLPA which is good as it demonstrates that his peers see him as a leader and bright character guy, but which may potentially cause some disstraction and conflict with management in a negotiating year. However, I think there are some clear positives as well: 1. He tied for the team lead with a signficant # of INTS. 2. He tied for the team lead in FRs though only 2 ain't alot but no Bill got a lot. 3. His resume does include some outstanding performances as a cover guy at CB who demonstrated the cover skills and speed to merit several Pro Bowl selections and he has pulled in a significant # of INTs in his career. 4. He has middlin production for the Bills in number of tackles credited to him last year which strongly indicates he certainly is not great or very good but also indicates he does not suck (which I take to mean his performance is well into the lower third of the team or the league). I think the very good news for the Bills lies in what we plan to emphasize in asking him to do assuming he is with us next year. 1. In the zone-blitz as Gray ran it, the safeties are called upon to play closer to the LOS and provide serious back-up and even primary run control work as the LBs may well be the primary blitzers or the DL may be dropping back in pass coverage (it also should be noted that the Bills did use their safeties to play both run support or pass coverage roles more than teams traditionally do where the SS is the run stopper almost always and the FS is a centerfielder almost always, though there was a bias toward Vincent playing more of a centerfielder role he was called upon in the zone blitz to take a primary role in run support unlike traditional safety usage from what I saw. The very good news for the Bills use of Vincent is with Jauron saying we are going to use more Cover 2, this acually will diminish the use of Vincent in exactly the area folks complain about (his tackling) and instead use him in a role he handled well in his career (pass coverage) and lends itself to his his resume (he has seen a lot over the years and diagnosing plays will be a key for good Cover 2 work by the safety. 2. The big demand though of Cover 2 is that the safeties will need to cover a lot of ground as they divide the field in half. However, I am a lot more worried about Milloy having lost a step from his moderate/good speed than I am about Vincent also having lost a step from his baseline of good/very good speed. Before folks give Vincent too hard a time about him being in the wrong place last year, remember that this was merely his first full season as a safety. Particularly as he was learning the new position within a troubled D, it certainly does not mean at all that Vincent has learned as much as he is going to learn about safety play. In fact to the contrary, It will not be shocking at all if he is much better at being in the right place at the right time. In fact, a much more likely worry is not that Vincent will not be able to figure out where should he be, but that he will not be able to get there because he is on the backside of his career. I think folks are foolish to site Ron Woodson as an example that a converted CB should be expected to pick-up the safety game immediately. The best can in fact do this as shown by Woodson. However, just because a player does not reach Woodson's level of performance that does not mean at all that he is a bad player who will never be any good. I think that the team leading INT #s that Vincent had last year are important because they indicate that he can play well. he key for him (and much of the Bills D unit) is to be more consistent. 3. The increased focus on the pass rush will help a lot. The biggest problem which I see in Vincent's game is that like virtually all DBs, he really needs a pass rush in order to perform as well as he can. I think a viewer is making big mistake to assess how well a player will do based solely on an assessment of their play. I think the key in this team game ios to assess how well his skill sets and deficits match and merge with the skillsets and deficits of his teammates. I think the key for positive production out of Vincent in 06 is that if the opposing QB is throwing in a hurry because a new DT and a good rushing FA DE are in the QBs face, then opposing receivers will not even have much of chance to get into the deep part of our Cover 2 or that the safeties will read the QBs body language and eyes and pick a few passes off. Again, this is not to simply let TV off the hook, this strikes me as the real world we are working with. Would I prefer a differe safety than Vincent who after 5 years in the league is hitting his peak as a player, has enough experience to make good reads but is young enough to make plays? You bet! This is not Vincent. However, since I do not see such a player available at an affordable cost with this skillset, I think our D switch plays to TVs strengths and away from his weaknesses and he should be able to do the job. Is he older? Yes! However, are there indications that he has something left (yes his team leadin INT and FR #s) and some indication that he is at least middling rather than plain sucking in his weaker areas? Yes, his middlin on the team tackle numbers I am also pleased that he started all 16 last year. It is missing a few starts as Villarial did which is one of the signs that age may catching up with a player. If folks have safety concerns, though I also think that the Cover 2 will be a boon to Lawyer Milloy, I a, much more worried about him rather than Vincent as far as their prospects. The yare both old guys on the backside of their careers, but Milloy has made his living as a tackler rather than a cover guy and seems to have a lower baseline of speed than Vincent that both have slipped from. Even worse, though TVs cap number is not small, Milloy's is even higher. I'd look to him as a likely problem we may be forced to replace rather than worry about Vincent. Milloy struck me as a more valuable player than TV last year at safety. However, the safeties will be asked/required to different things in the Cover 2 than in the run blitz. I think the Cover 2 helps both these players who I do not think have enough left to excel in the zone blitz. However, the Cover 2 strikes me as far more playing to TVs strengths than Milloys.

Its interesting to see several posts which try to predict (or even firnly assert in sone weird cases) who the Bills QB will be in 06 with what seems to me to be a reliance on their own dimestore psychology assessment of : 1. JP's reactions. 2. What Golden Boy Marv likes 3. What Golden Boy Ralph likes 4. What motivated Sam Wyche and what it means for JPs prospects. Folks just breathe deep and relax a bit. 1. The motivations of any of the people is complex and has many factors, not just simply one as most posts hang their hat on. To simply assert that there is only 1 factor motivating them ignores the balance they all are striking on any decision and ignores the fact that these balances may change in emphasis quite a bit depending upon events that they can easily do the exact opposite of a true assertion of a real motivation they have. 2. There are simply some real world constraints which will drive their decisions regardless of what they would prefer. Marv may love and be addicted to old stand-bys, but if the contract and salary cap implications of cutting JP are too harsh, regardless of what he likes he will not cut JP. 3.Garbage in and garbage out. Remember that there are factors and events inffluencing decision-making which we have forgotten or simply do not know about that really drive the decisions. For example, folks are trying to read the tea leaves and make judgments about whether Wyche leaving means he thinks JP is done (or alternately some folks theorize JP will improve because he is liberated from Wyche). Actually, the fact seems to be and was widely reported that Wyche was essentially rescued from retirement forced by medical problems by MM returning the favor of Wyche giving him his first coaching job by hiring Wyche even though there were medical questions about his future and medical effects of his voice being softer than the normal yellinc coach. Rather than JP's status or future being a gleaned from any Wyche action, it seems far more likely that decisions about his employment were driven by MM resigning and the JP/Wyche relationship being a sidelight to this decision. In the end, what happens in real life is simply going to make a huge difference and IMHO, that is the way it should be. JP and holcomb will compete on the field like they are supposed to in "voluntary" minicamps, then in training camp, and almost certainly in the first two pre-season games before any decision is made as to who starts. JP and Holcomb both are on record as saying that the starter should be determined by on field performance. JP has said publicly that he did not get the starters job the right way (through being better than Bledsoe in game performance) when he was handed the job when Bledsoe was cut. I think folks can easily comment on, but mostly ignore who is going to be "given" the QB job, because a big part of the Bills problem is that the braintrust keeps giving the job to someone when the real deal is that a player should take the job by his on field production.

I actually went to the stats here because I think they do very easily show that an attack made on Vincent;s plat by you (I think, though I do not remember if you these exact words) and others that Vincent sucked. I think the stats (for example even his middlin number of tackles) certainly do not indicate at all that he is great or even a very good player, but they strongly indicate he does not suck. Vincnet produced numbers which to me clearly indicate there is something to work with here. Even better for us, the switch to the cover 2 from the zone blitz would seem to be just the move to work with these numbers and it is to hoped produce even better results from Vincent in 06. Instead of calling on him to play closer to the line and provide even frontline run support if the LB is blitzing or the DL is doing pass coverage, Vincent instead will be called upon to play a few steps back and do deep zone pass coverage. The major issue for his demographics appears to be that cover 2 safeties who divide the field in half may well have to cover a lot of ground. However, though I certainly feel that he has lost a step, he started at a high rate of speed as one ofthe best cover CBs in the game and even a slower Vincent with a lot of experience should prove quite adequate in a cover 2 which minimizes the tackling weaknesses you site. The key questions for those who claim Vincent sucked last year are: 1. Is there any value or indication to be found in him tying for the team lead in INTs and FRs and for his middling performance (rather than sucking performance( getting tackles and making returns after this team leading INTs. 2. Do you think that the cover 2 is a defense which suits Vincent's skills (not all, a little, or a lot) better than the zone blitz. I recite the stats not to claim Vincent was great (he was not) or even very good (some games yes he was and some games no he was not). I site them to say that they indicate that he did not suck last year even despite some anecdotes of bad play.

I think the utility of the numbers and what prompted me to site them was not as proof that Vincent was a great player last year ( I don't think he or really any of the Bills defenders were - though I was impressed with Schobel's ability to both pass protect and rack up an impressive n# of sacks in the run blitz). While the numbers provide no real proof that he was even a good player, I do think they provide a strong indication that he does not suck as some folks maintain. I think those who maintain that he sucked do not really explain how if he was so bad he put up among the best stats of Bills defenders. Even if one agrees with the episodic anecdotes provided by good watchers like Dawgg, even these indicators could also be caused in some or even in most cases because Vincent is out of position covering up for someone else or a scheme problem. I really can't say for sure, not do I think that anyone else can at the level of claiming he sucks. What I think we do know for sure is: 1. If he fails to produce at the same level next year as this year, this team is going to have to find some INTs, fumble recoveries and a middlin amount of tackles somewhere as like it or not Vincent did produce these in 05. 2. I think that the zone blitz is not the best scheme to use someone of Vincent's skillset, but the good news is that I think playing safety in the Cover 2 will employ his skillsets in a better wau. I am curious what you think of these two thoughts.

The Bills will have a budget for how much of a cap hit can go to each position. They can violate it if they want but if they do it simply means there will be less cap room for another position. JP has a the big contract every first rounder is slotted to get and the bonus is prorated and this consumes the majority of the QB cap hit even if you cut him as all the bonus hit accelerates to the year he is cut. Holcomb has a cap hit for a well-paid back up but no where near a starter's hit. Matthews gets something like the vet minimum as our disaster QB and likely is gone to returement, Both Dilfer and Kitna (and most other recent starters for other( teams will command a far larger cap hit than Matthews. We almost certainly will not sign them and if we do as you suggest the other piece you need to make it a real suggestion is which position you propose to give a smaller cap hit to. I think the good news is that unlike when TD sacked Bledsoe after first stupidly extending him the QB job will not be simply given to JP, Holcomb (Kitna or whoever) by Marv and Ralph, it will be decided on the field by who plays best. That's good news because that is the way it should be (and ironically that is both what JP and Holcomb are on record saying).

The answer to the first question is No, the entire Bills D sucked last year and Vincent is a part of that D so one can easily make this general claim and really who cares as last season is over. However, even a slight look beyond the aggregate team results or a superficial exam of his play as an individual indicates to me that clearly the answer is no. 1. He tied for the team lead in INTs with McGee with 4. 2. He tied for the team lead in fumble recoveries (though only with a paltry total of but this speaks more to the entire teams issues and he tied for the team lead among this disappointing crew. 3. He actually averaged almost 20 yards per pick in return which is a very good number, showing some escapability and that his 4 picks were plays he made with his head on straight and got going the right way. 4. His total tackles credited to him was not a huge number but was about middlin on this team and actually exceeded results from players at other positions more often at the point of attack. True, there were individual plays where he may have looked bad, but which defender on the Bills did not suffer some embarassment last year as the D on the hole was overmatched and even overwhelmed by some opponents, If a poster wants to make a case that Vincent sucked which should be seen as anything more than the usual whining and bleating then the indictment needs a little more substance and meat that simply saying he is old. The key question though is will he be any good in 06. I think the answer is almost certainly yes with Jauron announcing we are going to use a lot of cover 2. There are some clear demands of a safety in the cover 2. Generally, the safeties divide the field in half and are responsible for any deep routes into their side. The safety needs: 1. Be a bright experienced guy who can read plays and cover the zone fron his position playing back. 2. Have some speed because he has a lot of ground to cover. This is a far better D scheme for Vincent than what is required of the safety in the zone blitz. Vincent as FS had more coverage responsibility than Milloy at SS, but it was typical for the Bills to use the two safeties interchanably. Their primary duty was often to pinch in on run support and cover for a DL player whom the zone blitz surprisingly had drop back in pass coverage, or to fill in for an LB sent in on a surprising blitz. Vincent will get the opportunity to play a more true centerfielder role in the cover 2. He will get to employ the coverage talents on deep receivers which made him a Pro Bowl CB several tines. The major Vincent failing is that he lost a step due to age. He and the team knows this and this is why he flipped from CB to S. Now with more Cover 2, he gets the extra advantage that he will not have to sprint back immediately in press coverage of a CB, but generally the play will come to him. Speed will be important as he will have a lot of field to cover, but not as essential as it is for a CB. Even though all of us lose speed with age, he can easily make up for this with the play coming to him and his new role as a centerfielder rather than tackler in Cover 2. I'm sure that some will have other thoughts about this, I just hope thay have something reasonable or even semi-objective to say to back up this view.