|
kingnat
|
01-16-2009, 11:37 PM
Post subject: Gruden Fired..
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 827
|
|
umm.. wtf?
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/01/16/gruden-gone/
|
|
So you click their picture and then you get their money?
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
Broncos McDaniels Do-Over go go go!
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here? 
|
|
wesrman
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 654
|
|
LOL FUCK YOU GRUDEN. YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
|
|
|
|
will641
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: getting my swell on
Posts: 1,610
|
|
kinda surprised it took this long.
|
|
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
|
|
WildBobAA
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: lol i dunno
Posts: 1,811
|
|
It's really idiotic that he got fired.
|
|
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,546
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildBobAA
It's really idiotic that he got fired.
|
not arguing just for the sake of arguing but his team had a few huge collapses plus his SB win was with someone else's players agaisnst the team he coached the previous year, that's a nice luxury.
Also, hearing what some of his players have been saying after he was fired makes is seem closer to the right decision. I'll agree that the timing was horrible, basically Gruden will have to sit and do TV for a year.
|
|
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Funny/hypocritical/laughable/etc. -- The Bucs fired John Gruden, which they have every right to do, then immediately hired a black candidate without ever interviewing a white one. However, were it reversed (i.e. had they fired a black coach and immediately hired a white one), it would been a blatant disregard for the rooney rule and the bucs would be subject to a huge fine.
Have I ever mentioned that I think it's a crappy rule in this day and age?
|
|
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,546
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
Funny/hypocritical/laughable/etc. -- The Bucs fired John Gruden, which they have every right to do, then immediately hired a black candidate without ever interviewing a white one. However, were it reversed (i.e. had they fired a black coach and immediately hired a white one), it would been a blatant disregard for the rooney rule and the bucs would be subject to a huge fine.
Have I ever mentioned that I think it's a crappy rule in this day and age?
|
racist ban
|
|
|
|
baudib
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,233
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
Funny/hypocritical/laughable/etc. -- The Bucs fired John Gruden, which they have every right to do, then immediately hired a black candidate without ever interviewing a white one. However, were it reversed (i.e. had they fired a black coach and immediately hired a white one), it would been a blatant disregard for the rooney rule and the bucs would be subject to a huge fine.
Have I ever mentioned that I think it's a crappy rule in this day and age?
|
Straw man.
When was the last time someone got fined for not interviewing a minority coach? If it's a big name or in-house promotion, they always look the other way.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter: Who else did the Rams interview?
|
|
|
|
UG
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,855
|
|
notice the Chiefs contingency here does not want Gruden
please do not fire Herm for Gruden, for the love of god
I actually like Gruden, like as a character, not as the coach of my favorite team
|
|
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudib
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
Funny/hypocritical/laughable/etc. -- The Bucs fired John Gruden, which they have every right to do, then immediately hired a black candidate without ever interviewing a white one. However, were it reversed (i.e. had they fired a black coach and immediately hired a white one), it would been a blatant disregard for the rooney rule and the bucs would be subject to a huge fine.
Have I ever mentioned that I think it's a crappy rule in this day and age?
|
Straw man.
When was the last time someone got fined for not interviewing a minority coach? If it's a big name or in-house promotion, they always look the other way.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter: Who else did the Rams interview? |
You are wrong on every point (impressive).
The last example I know of was when the NFL fined Matt Millen $200k back in 2003 for not interviewing any minority candidates before hiring Steve Mariucci.
If you were a minority candidate, would you comply with a sham interview when you had no chance at a job? How would you feel if you were Millen (no jokes about the quality of his roster please, it's irrelevant here) and were fined $200k because no minority candidate wanted to interview because it was so obvious Mariucci was getting the job?
The NFL *NEVER* looks away. Teams do sham interviews to meet this useless rule instead. For example, the Browns (who had just had a black coach) interviewed Mel Tucker (The Browns Defensive coordinator who is black), who clearly had no shot at the job. He wasn't even qualified and the defense arguably underperformed.
Please provide one example of a time when the NFL looked the other way on this rule. Note that there's an exception in the rule that an in-house replacement can be immediately promoted but *ONLY* if that is written into the contract before the former head coach resigns/is fired (see: Seattle with Holmgren and Mora).
The rams interviewed Leslie Frasier (who is black), among others. source: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...aves-st-louis/
|
|
|
|
UG
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,855
|
|
Lukie is like 99.99% right on this, maybe even 100% right....but that's the world we live in. Hopefully in 200 years people won't be having discussions about stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
baudib
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,233
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudib
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
Funny/hypocritical/laughable/etc. -- The Bucs fired John Gruden, which they have every right to do, then immediately hired a black candidate without ever interviewing a white one. However, were it reversed (i.e. had they fired a black coach and immediately hired a white one), it would been a blatant disregard for the rooney rule and the bucs would be subject to a huge fine.
Have I ever mentioned that I think it's a crappy rule in this day and age?
|
Straw man.
When was the last time someone got fined for not interviewing a minority coach? If it's a big name or in-house promotion, they always look the other way.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter: Who else did the Rams interview? |
You are wrong on every point (impressive).
The last example I know of was when the NFL fined Matt Millen $200k back in 2003 for not interviewing any minority candidates before hiring Steve Mariucci.
If you were a minority candidate, would you comply with a sham interview when you had no chance at a job? How would you feel if you were Millen (no jokes about the quality of his roster please, it's irrelevant here) and were fined $200k because no minority candidate wanted to interview because it was so obvious Mariucci was getting the job?
The NFL *NEVER* looks away. Teams do sham interviews to meet this useless rule instead. For example, the Browns (who had just had a black coach) interviewed Mel Tucker (The Browns Defensive coordinator who is black), who clearly had no shot at the job. He wasn't even qualified and the defense arguably underperformed.
Please provide one example of a time when the NFL looked the other way on this rule. Note that there's an exception in the rule that an in-house replacement can be immediately promoted but *ONLY* if that is written into the contract before the former head coach resigns/is fired (see: Seattle with Holmgren and Mora).
The rams interviewed Leslie Frasier (who is black), among others. source: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...aves-st-louis/ |
"Sham" is the key word here. Everyone around the NFL knows all you have to do is chat up Dennis Green for half an hour and you're covered.
When you have to go back six years to find an example of enforcement, along with three minority coaches hired in that time, it's a pretty good sign that no one takes this very serioiusly.
|
|
|
|
WildBobAA
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: lol i dunno
Posts: 1,811
|
|
I realize the Bucs collapsed this year but the Bucs organization is underestimating how hard it is to go 9-7 in the NFL (the Jets did too when the fired Mangini). Gruden was operating with below average offensive talent the entire time he was in Tampa. The fact that he had a winning record with the QBs he had (Shaun King anyone?) means he deserves to keep his job.
|
|
|
|
baudib
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,233
|
|
Overall, I think Gruden did a good job this year. I realize some of the players hate him. But that team had no business winning more than 7 games.
|
|
Playing big pots at small stakes.
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudib
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudib
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
Funny/hypocritical/laughable/etc. -- The Bucs fired John Gruden, which they have every right to do, then immediately hired a black candidate without ever interviewing a white one. However, were it reversed (i.e. had they fired a black coach and immediately hired a white one), it would been a blatant disregard for the rooney rule and the bucs would be subject to a huge fine.
Have I ever mentioned that I think it's a crappy rule in this day and age?
|
Straw man.
When was the last time someone got fined for not interviewing a minority coach? If it's a big name or in-house promotion, they always look the other way.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter: Who else did the Rams interview? |
You are wrong on every point (impressive).
The last example I know of was when the NFL fined Matt Millen $200k back in 2003 for not interviewing any minority candidates before hiring Steve Mariucci.
If you were a minority candidate, would you comply with a sham interview when you had no chance at a job? How would you feel if you were Millen (no jokes about the quality of his roster please, it's irrelevant here) and were fined $200k because no minority candidate wanted to interview because it was so obvious Mariucci was getting the job?
The NFL *NEVER* looks away. Teams do sham interviews to meet this useless rule instead. For example, the Browns (who had just had a black coach) interviewed Mel Tucker (The Browns Defensive coordinator who is black), who clearly had no shot at the job. He wasn't even qualified and the defense arguably underperformed.
Please provide one example of a time when the NFL looked the other way on this rule. Note that there's an exception in the rule that an in-house replacement can be immediately promoted but *ONLY* if that is written into the contract before the former head coach resigns/is fired (see: Seattle with Holmgren and Mora).
The rams interviewed Leslie Frasier (who is black), among others. source: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...aves-st-louis/ |
"Sham" is the key word here. Everyone around the NFL knows all you have to do is chat up Dennis Green for half an hour and you're covered.
When you have to go back six years to find an example of enforcement, along with three minority coaches hired in that time, it's a pretty good sign that no one takes this very serioiusly. |
You have to go back 6 years to find an example of enforcement, because teams are smart enough to follow the letter of the law. You still didn't provide an example of a time when the NFL didn't enforce the rule. You said:
Quote:
|
When was the last time someone got fined for not interviewing a minority coach? If it's a big name or in-house promotion, they always look the other way.
|
I'm still waiting for an example.
OF COURSE teams do sham interviews if there are no qualified black candidates. Take an example I am intimately familiar with (as a Browns fan)-- Cleveland had a head coach opening this year. What qualified minority candidate was there to interview?? The only name you could possibly come up with is Leslie Frazier, DC of the Vikings. However, they run a completely different scheme with completely different personnel than do the Browns, and his background is entirely on defense.
Again, I ask, who should the Browns have interviewed? There were only a handful of people that even had a chance, and none of them happened to be a minority. Big deal. We also just had a black coach, so don't pull the implicit racism card.
Re: 3 minority head coaches hired in the last 6 years. What's your point? How many head coaches *total* have been hired in that span and what percent of the population do blacks make up? If this doesn't work, I'd invoke the sample size argument.
More importantly, in that 6 year stretch, can you give me one minority candidate that is qualified to be a head coach yet was not hired or seriously considered? I don't think you can find one.
Make no mistake about it, teams are not doing the wrong thing by doing sham interviews if there are no qualified minority candidates to take their HC position. They are being forced into doing so (to avoid a huge fine) by a blatantly unfair, reverse discriminatory rule. Why should teams take a laughable rule seriously?
Put yourself in Leslie Frazier's shoes. The guy WILL be a head coach some day, and my money is on sooner rather than later (and this has absolutely nothing to do with this bogus Rooney Rule). Don't you think when he is ultimately a head coach, there will be people that think he was only hired because of the rule? I think that is a shame. Being the head coach of an NFL team (i.e. the very top of the profession) is something to be proud of and it's unfortunate that this rule could diminish that accomplishment in some peoples eyes.
note: I use black and minority interchangeably here because while not strictly accurate, minority does = black in the NFL world.
|
|
|
|
kingnat
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 827
|
|
Rams got dem Spags.. Kingnat is the happy.
|
|
So you click their picture and then you get their money?
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Overlooked: Mike Singletary and Jim Caldwell. Along with Morris, that makes 3 black coaches hired this year without interviewing anybody else.
I don't have a problem with this. If teams know who they want to hire, they should have every right to make that hire, regardless of racial considerations.
It's the gross double standard that bothers me.
|
|
|
|
Knytestorme
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 562
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
note: I use black and minority interchangeably here because while not strictly accurate, minority does = black in the NFL world.
|
No idea how they could ever consider this anywhere near accurate.
Watching any playoff game so far I've seen ~70% of all players are black...if the NFL want to use the word minority then perhaps they should use it accurately
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
guys, racism is over. just call them black
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
kb coolman
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 596
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
minority does = white in the NFL world.
|
FYP
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
