Orton's Arm

Gender isn't really part of this discussion, so I'm not going to respond to the parts of your post that address the issue of women and coaching. What we're really dealing with here are people who define "progress" as replacing whites with blacks. Some of this--especially from blacks--is based on a love for the black race. Many white people buy into this thinking because they've been taught the white race is uniquely guilty, and so should be made to sacrifice to atone for past sins. Whatever people's motivations, their actions sometimes produce outcomes that are unfair. Did James Lofton--a position coach acquitted of rape--really deserve to be one of the candidates interviewed for the Bills' head coaching position? Was this really an example of the Rooney Rule forcing a GM to interview a highly qualified candidate he otherwise might have overlooked? Wasn't the whole Lofton circus degrading to the black candidates who really did deserve the head coaching interviews they received? An illogical outcome--such as the Lofton situation--is evidence of a flawed thinking process. If you're feeling guilty about things your ancestors did to someone else's ancestors, it's going to be really tough to see things as they are today. James Lofton isn't a former slave. He isn't a pregnant black woman who was asked to give up her bus seat to a white man. He's a man who was paid millions to play a sport he loved, and who has now become the beneficiary of an affirmative action program designed to help the "underprivileged." The fact he was interviewed for a head coaching position doesn't indicate "progress" towards anything except a more racially charged, less merit-based NFL.

While you may well be right, Losman is going to be spending his offseason doing something, and it's not like he can play in NFL games over the winter and spring. Studying film of Tom Brady, Brett Favre, etc. won't hurt, and might help.

Good! They really strung us along with that whole Travis Henry trade. What goes around comes around.

I partially agree with this. This is a tough year to trade up, because this is a deep draft for OL. If the Bills do think Mario is going to be elite, they could maybe work out some kind of trade. But they should be trading away existing players or picks from the 2007 draft, and not the 2006 picks that should be allocated to the OL.

I appreciate the time you put into writing that lengthy post. However, I don't feel my main point was addressed. Because the applicant pool is broader than just NFL players, it stands to reason that the racial composition of NFL coaches should look like society at large, or at least like college football players. The Rooney Rule is intended to make the NFL coaching ranks have the same racial composition as NFL players. This goal is inherently racist. The applicant pool has been defined too narrowly, because Johnny Cochran was advancing a particular racial agenda. The NFL caved into his pressure to avoid a public relations scandal. Nobody can fault Cochran for sticking up for his own race, but he took things too far. His interference in NFL hiring is one example, using race-baiting to defend a black celebrity guilty of murder is another. You talk about injustices against blacks in the NFL. This is an odd point, considering how well NFL players are paid, and the fact most players are black. If anything, the NFL is an efficient means of redistributing wealth from a mostly white fan base, to a mostly black player base. But that's not enough for some. You talk about how, historically, black people were discriminated against. Well guess what? Most white people weren't allowed into the upper echelons of society either. Born into a poor, unconnected white family? Too bad. Chances are you're not going anywhere. There were exceptions to this rule, especially during times when new industries were being created. But for the most part, the U.S. was much more of a caste system than people would like to admit. In many ways it still is. To pretend blacks were the only ones being harmed by this caste system is to ignore the fate of the majority of whites. The solution to past discrimination (mostly caste-based) isn't to allow race to enter into employment decisions. It's to allow, even encourage, employers to establish more of a meritocracy. A merit-based suggestion like forbidding teams from hiring coaches until after the Super Bowl would have helped qualified candidates like Marvin Lewis and John Fox. Unfortunately, merit-based measures such as those have been put on the back burner, while the league pursues more politically oriented actions such as the Rooney Rule.

Racially biased against whom? As has been discussed, many good coaches aren't former NFL players. Asking the NFL coaching pool to resemble the racial composition of NFL players is racially biased against whites and other non-blacks. Yet making NFL coaches have the same racial composition as NFL players is pretty much the intent of the Rooney Rule, as mild as the measure itself may be.

I was wondering whether you'd manage to miss my post's sarcasm.

I went to this website. It was entirely dedicated to the ideological goal of increasing the percentage of blacks in coaching ranks. Some justification for the goal was provided by saying that, on average, black coaches had higher winning percentage than white coaches. But even if this had not been the case, one still gets the feeling this group would still be saying the same things. The real meat, however, was contained in a linked page Black Coaches: superior performance, inferior opportunities. One of this report's authors was Johnny Cochran, the guy who used race baiting to keep OJ out of jail. The report begins with an executive summary that summarizes none of the report's findings. The next section is labeled "an unprecedented statistical analysis" despite the fact the sample size used was too small to conclude anything with statistical significance. A labor economist was used to do basic arithmetic, and these calculations form the heart of this report. An example is "the black coaches averaged 1.1 more wins per season than the white coaches." After several statements along those lines, the report stated that, "Statistical analysis thus demonstrates that by virtually every objective criteria [sic], black head coaches in the NFL have outperformed their white counterparts." Statistical analysis would involve using a t-distribution to see if the respective averages are statistically significant. The report didn't use a t-test (or any other valid statistical test) to show statistically significant results; so its use of the phrase "statistical analysis thus demonstrates" is incorrect. The report goes on to suggest that teams be rewarded with draft picks for hiring minority candidates. It then concludes by praising the concept of a level playing field!

Good for him. But Mike Sherman also did quite well for the Packers for a number of years, only to have a bad (injury-laden) season this year. Edwards also had a bad (injury-laden) year this past year. But while Edwards will be coaching the Chiefs next season, Sherman will be staying home. If Edwards was white and Sherman was black, you guys would be citing these parallel cases as a clear example of racial discrimination. But I don't see things that way. Sometimes, life isn't fair, and it's not always about race. Take Marvin Lewis, for example. After his Ravens defense had one of the best years in NFL history, he received only one head coaching interview. Was this about race? No. It was because most teams had filled their head coaching vacancies before the Super Bowl; and weren't allowed to interview candidates from teams still in contention. Personally, I think the present system is unfair. Nobody should be allowed to hire a head coach, coordinator, or assistant coach until a week after the Super Bowl. That way, guys like Marvin Lewis and John Fox won't be punished for their teams' success.

Let's make a list of black coaches who have been the head coach for more than one team: Herm Edwards, Denny Green, Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, and maybe a few others I'm forgetting.

Occassionally, a head coach that was fired from one place gets a second chance someplace else. This is especially true when those doing the hiring want someone experienced for the job. Is it racist to value experience at the head coaching level more than excellence at the coordinator level? Of course not. It may not make for a well-coached football team, but it isn't racist. Nor has this practice resulted in an outcome systemically unfair to blacks. On the contrary, the proportion of black NFL coaches already exceeds the proportion of blacks in the general population.

Let's look at numbers. The percentage of black NFL coaches is already higher than the percentage of blacks in the general population. So if we're talking about a broadly-defined applicant pool, and we're looking at numbers like that, it becomes very difficult to make a case that racial discrimination is a problem in the NFL. You mention incompetent coaches being hired, and cite Miami's hiring of Mike Mularkey as an example. What makes you so sure Mike Mularkey won't be the next Gregg Williams? Which offensive coordinator candidates should Miami have chosen instead? I don't know they had a whole lot of proven options out there, and a younger coach like Saban might want some experience on his staff.

Ah yes, Johnny "I used race baiting to let a murderer walk free" Cochran. Our friend.

Let me get this straight: I'm an idiot, and JoeSixPack thinks in black and white. And you're tolerant of those who see the world differently than you. Gotcha.

What you describe may be due to discrimination, or it may be due to your wife earning more than his wife, or it may be that he had a history of late or missed payments which would have impacted his credit score. Was this his first marriage? Sometimes a messy divorce can really do a number on your credit rating. Without knowing your respective credit scores, you really can't be sure this was racism.

Actually, it's not me that's making the assumption. It's the assumption behind the Rooney Rule. You see, the Rooney Rule is intended to make the coaching ranks look less like America, and more like the NFL player population. The implication being that former NFL players are being denied coaching positions due to race. But as you point out, good NFL coaches don't necessarily have professional football experience. So why should the racial composition of NFL coaches resemble that of the professional players? Why not have it resemble that of college players, or even high school players?

Well, I sure didn't hear you complaining about this post: How does a documentary about people being lynched provide a better understanding of why the leauge should provide more economic opportunities for filthy rich former players? Listen, buddy, this is a discussion board. Everyone has the right to chime in, same as you. If you want to have a private conversation with someone, I'd suggest sending a personal message.

Why on earth should you have to defend yourself from the accusation of being a moral absolutist? You simply made the very logical and reasonable point that allowing race to become a factor in employment decisions is yet another barrier to a meritocracy. Instead of addressing this (valid) point, Simon chose to make this a discussion of whether you see the world in black and white. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Simon is completely right. Let's say that you've never noticed a single nuance about anything. Would that invalidate your point about race preferences and a meritocracy? Of course not. Simon complains about your inability to grasp subtle nuance. Yet he seems to agree with those who lump millionaire black former NFL players and lynch mob victims into the same general category.

Well, buddy, that's sort of what you did say. Unless you're implying that someone can have honest and good intentions for simply choosing not to get it. I guess I must have hit a nerve. Fine with me.

He "simply doesn't want to get it" because he sees the world differently than you do, right? Well, Simon, maybe some of the people who see things differently than you actually have honest motives and good intentions. You should learn to respect others' points of view, and not simply assume their intentions are evil or that they are out of touch just because their views differ from yours. Tolerance is sometimes a difficult thing to achieve, but at least try.

Before you me, you might want to go back through some of the posts that have to do with McGahee: Hopefully I've made my point.

Well, the Bills and Titans have another thing in common: Travis Henry. He had some solid years here running the football, and people respected his ability to pound the ball between the tackles. But then Willis McGahee came along, and seemed to outplay him. I say "seemed to" because in the games Travis started (early in the season) the Bills' offensive line was a mess, and the Bills faced some really good defenses. But the line began to gel around the time McGahee was made the starter. I still think McGahee was the better back, but not to the extent you'd think based just on that one year.

No good can come from thinking like this. Imagine a family with twin children; a boy and a girl. The parents decide to treat the girl better than the boy, to make up for past injustices against women. Is that a good--or even a sane--attitude for the parents to adopt? Is there even the slightest chance this attitude will make them better parents than they would have been had they treated both children equally? Of course not. But let's say the boy from this family chooses to apply your logic of group rights. His experience is that females are treated better than males. So according to this whole group rights logic, he's entitled to make up for this by treating males better than females. His response would be a natural human reaction. Traditionally, people were taught not all their reactions were good; and that sometimes you had to restrain your more evil desires to be just to those around you. There is still some of this being taught, but not as much. Too often, modern society has gotten away from notions like justice or fairness to the individual. This group rights confusion is a big reason why. People are born into this world as relatively blank slates. Yes, each person has their own unique nature and inborn personality. But no language, no culture, no history of having done right or wrong. No burdens, no obligations, and no entitlements. Treat everyone decently, until they give you a reason to do otherwise. Don't get caught up in which genders or ethnic groups should be treated more decently than others. That's silly. If you want to know who needs your help the most, listen to individuals. Pay attention to people as individuals. Not as groups. Then you'll know.

Yeah, because there's such an obvious connection between the slaves who were beaten and abused back in the 1850s, and former NFL players (who have already been paid millions) who want to be paid additional millions for being head coaches. It's not often that a group of millionaires (in this case, retired black NFL players) is cast in the victim role. If you want to find real victims, go to an inner city, or to Appalachia.

You express yourself well, and I agree with your underlying logic of executing an overall team strategy. But there are a few points about which we disagree. First, a quarterback is different from other skill position players, in that a bad QB will kill your team with interceptions. Maybe a bad WR will fail to get open, or will drop passes. But you can still punt once your drives die, and that's better than having the other team return an INT for a TD. Or better still, just don't throw to the guy. But there's no way for a team to work around having a bad QB. I agree that a DT, for example, has a much better chance of making an immediate impact than a QB. But the Bills won't be going to next year's Super Bowl anyway. What a guy can bring to the table in 2007 or 2008 becomes more interesting than what he can do in 2006. Assume that the earliest the Bills will be a Super Bowl threat is 2007. It would make sense to try to focus on drafting offense this year, and defense next year. Offensive players tend to need time to develop, so you'd want to get them on board as quickly as possible to give them that time. This includes the QB, assuming this is a position of need. It also includes the OL. This year's draft is deep along the offensive line, so the Bills should strongly consider using their 2nd, 3rd, and 3rd round picks on the OL. The right strategy all depends on how much (or little) faith the Bills have in JP, in Cutler, and in the draft's other QBs. It's really tough to get to the Super Bowl without elite play from your QB. I'm fairly sure that, in the history of the Super Bowl, no core group of players has gone there twice unless that core group included an excellent QB. Elite QBs are rare to nonexistent in the free agent market, so you really have to take a long, hard look at the draft.