2021 Around the League Thread

[Superman(DH23)]

6 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

No doubt but you know the NFL will try and play this off as simple confusion on all parts and BB making a mistake...it's wrong in every way but I don't know if it is enough to bring about the change needed.

Truthfully I dont know if change is needed.  On the outside I think Flores is a really good coach, but he created a reputation (fair or not) that he cant get along with other guys, and rumors were he wanted complete control, and he doesnt have the skins on the wall to warrant that.  Now if that's the only way he wants to coach, then so be it, but he needs to understand he is applying for a job, he is going to have a boss he has to answer to and ultimately that person is going to dictate terms, not him.

[topwop1]

2 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

9 hour interview with Patrick Graham today...I get the impression KAM wants Graham...ownership and fan base probably demand Harbaugh.

If Graham doesn't get the job now and Harbaugh flies in tmrw and agrees to a deal with the Vikings then this just further proves Flores' point of these interviews with minority candidates being a sham in a lot of cases.

I also really hope Minnesota hires Graham over Harbaugh not because I think Graham is a bad option but because I won't be able to stand watching us go up against Harbaugh twice a year after he was one of my top targets for Bears HC

Them getting Harbaugh also likely means Fangio being the DC for them... I don't like that at all

[Madmike90]

7 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Truthfully I dont know if change is needed.  On the outside I think Flores is a really good coach, but he created a reputation (fair or not) that he cant get along with other guys, and rumors were he wanted complete control, and he doesnt have the skins on the wall to warrant that.  Now if that's the only way he wants to coach, then so be it, but he needs to understand he is applying for a job, he is going to have a boss he has to answer to and ultimately that person is going to dictate terms, not him.

For me that is a separate issue...one which I agree with when it comes to Flores.

[AZBearsFan]

7 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

The smoking gun is that he texted the wrong Brian.  He texted Flores by accident before Flores had interviewed and Flores interviewed days before the announcement was made, meaning the job had been handed to Daboll before the Rooney rule had been satisfied.

Hadn’t Rooney already been satisfied by them interviewing Leslie Frazier the week before? The Giants’ Twitter feed shows a Frazier interview 1/22, and the BB text was I believe after Daboll’s second interview on 1/26.

I deal with all sorts of discrimination cases in my line of work, and they generally require pretty specific evidence to prove. Flores will really need to be able to establish that he was more qualified than those who ultimately got the job over him. Considering he had just been fired a few weeks earlier from that exact post with a different team amidst concerns of gross dysfunction with his staff and his own QB, I don’t think it’d be a stretch at all for any team with a HC opening this year to say even if they saw Flores as equally qualified to the guy they ultimately hired that they just weren’t comfortable potentially bringing that kind of discord into a situation that is one where you’re seeking stability. Now, is that argument BS? Maybe, but it’s entirely plausible too. Flores is the one with the burden to prove otherwise.

In the Giants’ case, Daboll was interviewed by I think every team with an opening in this cycle so it should be easy for them to argue that he’s highly qualified. And, even if they had decided Daboll was their guy before the Flores interview, they still went forward with Flores’ interview anyway despite having already satisfied Rooney, which they can reasonably contend was them giving him a fair chance to change their minds. They could have just canceled on him, but they didn’t. Given all that, how does Flores clearly get beyond the burden of proof (preponderance of evidence in a civil case)? It’s word vs. word at best.

To be clear, I 100% believe that “sham interviews” happen in the NFL, with minority candidates as well as non-minorities. I’m just not convinced that’s what happened with Flores in this particular case. There were entirely legitimate questions about whether he should get another chance at a HC gig right away after Miami.

[Madmike90]

1 hour ago, AZBearsFan said:

Hadn’t Rooney already been satisfied by them interviewing Leslie Frazier the week before? The Giants’ Twitter feed shows a Frazier interview 1/22, and the BB text was I believe after Daboll’s second interview on 1/26.

I deal with all sorts of discrimination cases in my line of work, and they generally require pretty specific evidence to prove. Flores will really need to be able to establish that he was more qualified than those who ultimately got the job over him. Considering he had just been fired a few weeks earlier from that exact post with a different team amidst concerns of gross dysfunction with his staff and his own QB, I don’t think it’d be a stretch at all for any team with a HC opening this year to say even if they saw Flores as equally qualified to the guy they ultimately hired that they just weren’t comfortable potentially bringing that kind of discord into a situation that is one where you’re seeking stability. Now, is that argument BS? Maybe, but it’s entirely plausible too. Flores is the one with the burden to prove otherwise.

In the Giants’ case, Daboll was interviewed by I think every team with an opening in this cycle so it should be easy for them to argue that he’s highly qualified. And, even if they had decided Daboll was their guy before the Flores interview, they still went forward with Flores’ interview anyway despite having already satisfied Rooney, which they can reasonably contend was them giving him a fair chance to change their minds. They could have just canceled on him, but they didn’t. Given all that, how does Flores clearly get beyond the burden of proof (preponderance of evidence in a civil case)? It’s word vs. word at best.

To be clear, I 100% believe that “sham interviews” happen in the NFL, with minority candidates as well as non-minorities. I’m just not convinced that’s what happened with Flores in this particular case. There were entirely legitimate questions about whether he should get another chance at a HC gig right away after Miami.

Isn't it now 2 minority candidates at HC and 1 for coordinator?...

The bold I couldn't agree with more.

[Superman(DH23)]

57 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

Isn't it now 2 minority candidates at HC and 1 for coordinator?...

The bold I couldn't agree with more.

Yeah it's unfortunate, but the Rooney rule is a box that has to be checked and nothing more.  The idea is great, get a candidate a chance to at least interview and let him prove himself, but instead it's become one or 2 guys every cycle who interview with everybody to check the box and that's it.

[Madmike90]

23 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Yeah it's unfortunate, but the Rooney rule is a box that has to be checked and nothing more.  The idea is great, get a candidate a chance to at least interview and let him prove himself, but instead it's become one or 2 guys every cycle who interview with everybody to check the box and that's it.

And the most unfortunate part is when you see some minority candidates being interviewed that is immediately where your mind goes especially at the coordinator level...

The other issue is the idea of given picks for having minorities hired away from your staff...I just do see how that creates a level playing field which is all anyone can ask for.

[Superman(DH23)]

1 minute ago, Madmike90 said:

And the most unfortunate part is when you see some minority candidates being interviewed that is immediately where your mind goes especially at the coordinator level...

The other issue is the idea of given picks for having minorities hired away from your staff...I just do see how that creates a level playing field which is all anyone can ask for.

You cant legislate equality.  That's really the bottom line here.  I dont know what the solution is, or if one is even needed, 5 current minority HCs, 2 more minority GMs hired, and likely 1 or 2 more minority HCs yet to be added on this cycle.  Are we saying it's only fair when we get to 50/50?  Or do we have to wait until its 70% minority to call it fair.  

And on Flores himself, I bet that if he wasnt demanding full roster control, and that whoever signs him trade for Watson, he would probably have a job right now.  

[topwop1]

54 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

And the most unfortunate part is when you see some minority candidates being interviewed that is immediately where your mind goes especially at the coordinator level...

The other issue is the idea of given picks for having minorities hired away from your staff...I just do see how that creates a level playing field which is all anyone can ask for.

If the NFL wanted to encourage more minority hires then wouldn't it make more sense to award the team hiring the minority coach compensatory draft picks instead of the team where that coach came from?  This is where I'm a bit confused at this rule 

[CBears019]

2 hours ago, topwop1 said:

If the NFL wanted to encourage more minority hires then wouldn't it make more sense to award the team hiring the minority coach compensatory draft picks instead of the team where that coach came from?  This is where I'm a bit confused at this rule 

I think the idea is that it incentivizes and encourages teams to develop and put resources into their minority position coaches/lower level execs so that they will be legitimately considered for HC/GM positions down the road.  I think compensation on both ends would be a little more appropriate.

[topwop1]

1 hour ago, CBears019 said:

I think the idea is that it incentivizes and encourages teams to develop and put resources into their minority position coaches/lower level execs so that they will be legitimately considered for HC/GM positions down the road.  I think compensation on both ends would be a little more appropriate.

I understand the development part for sure but like you said it should be both ways not just one way.

It's sad that we're still seeing this happen in today's NFL and I think the league isn't doing enough to make more minority hires happen

I'm usually a proponent of hiring the best candidate available regardless of race but something's got to give with only 1 active black coach.

I'm glad to see that the Bears at least made a minority hire with their GM Poles who seems like a very bright and qualified young executive

[dll2000]

9 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

Hadn’t Rooney already been satisfied by them interviewing Leslie Frazier the week before? The Giants’ Twitter feed shows a Frazier interview 1/22, and the BB text was I believe after Daboll’s second interview on 1/26.

I deal with all sorts of discrimination cases in my line of work, and they generally require pretty specific evidence to prove. Flores will really need to be able to establish that he was more qualified than those who ultimately got the job over him. Considering he had just been fired a few weeks earlier from that exact post with a different team amidst concerns of gross dysfunction with his staff and his own QB, I don’t think it’d be a stretch at all for any team with a HC opening this year to say even if they saw Flores as equally qualified to the guy they ultimately hired that they just weren’t comfortable potentially bringing that kind of discord into a situation that is one where you’re seeking stability. Now, is that argument BS? Maybe, but it’s entirely plausible too. Flores is the one with the burden to prove otherwise.

In the Giants’ case, Daboll was interviewed by I think every team with an opening in this cycle so it should be easy for them to argue that he’s highly qualified. And, even if they had decided Daboll was their guy before the Flores interview, they still went forward with Flores’ interview anyway despite having already satisfied Rooney, which they can reasonably contend was them giving him a fair chance to change their minds. They could have just canceled on him, but they didn’t. Given all that, how does Flores clearly get beyond the burden of proof (preponderance of evidence in a civil case)? It’s word vs. word at best.

To be clear, I 100% believe that “sham interviews” happen in the NFL, with minority candidates as well as non-minorities. I’m just not convinced that’s what happened with Flores in this particular case. There were entirely legitimate questions about whether he should get another chance at a HC gig right away after Miami.

I haven't had a chance to read complaint yet so I am not sure what laws or torts they are using and it has been about 22 years since I looked at this area of law, but if I recall there are various ways to prove a prima facie case other than strict intent on qualifications.

They can look at applicant pool versus those hired for example and make a statistical case.  I think they may have done that with Coke or some huge company way back in 80s or 90s when a lot of these big cases were making the rounds.  

The evidence from BB that you have intent to hire a specific guy and are still putting forth subsequent 'sham' interviews is evidence of intent and discrimination as well I would think.   I think someone pointed out they already complied with Rooney rule so it is double damning.  

I also remember when Rooney rule first started a Detroit GM (Matt Millen?) said he wasn't going to do sham interviews and was going to keep his honesty and integrity and all that since he had his coach already.   NFL hammered him anyway.   They wanted him to go through the motions still.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/news/2003/0725/1585560.html

After that most teams started a process of doing the 'sham' or Rooney interview right away to make sure they comply and then the serious interviews are conducted or the guy they already want is just hired.   Like Parcells for Dallas or Fangio or whoever.   Been a lot of guys that fit this bill and situation.   There are black guys that have been interviewed many dozens of times and they know the deal.    

 I believe guys generally get some nice perks and compensation for being willing to be the Rooney guy  since they know it is a sham and the teams are orally honest with them about it if they aren't a serious candidate.  

I think Flores was a serious candidate they were seriously considering at one time and therefore he didn't get these perks.   I think he was the guy before they switched GMs.  

[chisoxguy7]

Flores is now alleging that Dolphins owner Stephen Ross offered to pay him $100,000 per loss suffered in the 2019 season in an attempt to increase the value of the Dolphins’ draft pick (s) that year.

 

Pretty damning. Hard to see how Miami has any hope of creating a winning culture with Ross at the helm, if true.

[AZBearsFan]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

I haven't had a chance to read complaint yet so I am not sure what laws or torts they are using and it has been about 22 years since I looked at this area of law, but if I recall there are various ways to prove a prima facie case other than strict intent on qualifications.

They can look at applicant pool versus those hired for example and make a statistical case.  I think they may have done that with Coke or some huge company way back in 80s or 90s when a lot of these big cases were making the rounds.  

The evidence from BB that you have intent to hire a specific guy and are still putting forth subsequent 'sham' interviews is evidence of intent and discrimination as well I would think.   I think someone pointed out they already complied with Rooney rule so it is double damning.  

I haven’t read it yet in it’s entirety either. On what’s been widely discussed I don’t see how it’s a prima facie case (IMO) because so many more things go into why you’d select a HC candidate than just their resume that have nothing to do with race. Things like communication skills, command of a room, expanse of network from which to bring in qualified assistants, meshing of the plan for the roster moving forward with that of the GM, etc. I think that’s Flores’ biggest hurdle here, regardless of the BB texts.

As to the texts, Flores has a high bar to clear to show evidence of intent and/or discrimination unless he can show somehow that they already had a deal worked out with Daboll before completing the interview (which we don’t know yet). If so, then the Giants are sunk. But beyond that, how does he get past a defense argument that NY “liked Daboll as their top guy but Flores was also a highly credentialed candidate we hadn’t yet interviewed and had scheduled already, so we wanted to give him and the other candidates we interviewed after Daboll’s 2nd interview the opportunity to put himself to the top of our list”? NY may lose a case on public perception, but court cases are won and lost on evidence.

To play it out a bit, say hypothetically that NYG releases something along the lines of the following: 

“The New York Giants pride ourselves on our practice of hiring employees all throughout our organization on their merits and merits alone. Our record will reflect that our work force is comprised of a highly diverse group of individuals. It is in no small part because of this that we are deeply troubled by the allegations levied against our organization by Mr. Flores in the recently filed lawsuit.

Our exhaustive HC candidate evaluation process included not only speaking with the candidates themselves, but also those who have worked with them and for them in the past, including former players and coaches. Like with any other position within the organization, our evaluations of HC candidates, including Mr. Flores, were completed without any consideration given to the candidates’ race nor ethnicity. We are deeply saddened that Mr. Flores’ perception of the process has led him to believe otherwise.

It is our obligation to the fans, the organization and the candidates themselves to hire what our assessment finds to be the best coach and leader for our football organization. Utilizing all aspects of our search, we confidently and fairly concluded that Mr. Flores was not the best candidate to fill our HC position. Specifically, the leadership portion of the role is paramount for us, perhaps even more so following the tumultuous tenure of the prior regime. We placed organizational stability at a premium when identifying what we believed the ideal leader for our football organization moving forward. To that end, we had genuine questions about Mr. Flores’ ability to be an effective leader for the full roster given how things transpired while he served in the HC role for the Miami Dolphins. This concern specifically led to Mr. Flores being placed behind other candidates for our HC opening, including Mr. Daboll, who was ultimately hired for the role.

We had hoped to keep our specific critiques related to Mr. Flores’ candidacy private so as not to paint him in a negative light and potentially limit other prospective employment opportunities he may have within the league. We value Mr. Flores’ own integrity and privacy in the same way we value that of those employed throughout our organization. However, in light of the impending litigation we have now been placed in a position where our own integrity has been called into question, and we must vigorously defend our actions."

 

That’s a sample merit-based explanation for why Flores may have already been behind Daboll in the Giants’ minds before the interview. What of that can Flores actually refute with facts if Daboll’s deal wasn’t already done before he was interviewed? If he can’t, then I think his chances to prevail in the impending lawsuit are likely pretty low. 

[dll2000]

4 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

I haven’t read it yet in it’s entirety either. On what’s been widely discussed I don’t see how it’s a prima facie case (IMO) because so many more things go into why you’d select a HC candidate than just their resume that have nothing to do with race. Things like communication skills, command of a room, expanse of network from which to bring in qualified assistants, meshing of the plan for the roster moving forward with that of the GM, etc. I think that’s Flores’ biggest hurdle here, regardless of the BB texts.

As to the texts, Flores has a high bar to clear to show evidence of intent and/or discrimination unless he can show somehow that they already had a deal worked out with Daboll before completing the interview (which we don’t know yet). If so, then the Giants are sunk. But beyond that, how does he get past a defense argument that NY “liked Daboll as their top guy but Flores was also a highly credentialed candidate we hadn’t yet interviewed and had scheduled already, so we wanted to give him and the other candidates we interviewed after Daboll’s 2nd interview the opportunity to put himself to the top of our list”? NY may lose a case on public perception, but court cases are won and lost on evidence.

To play it out a bit, say hypothetically that NYG releases something along the lines of the following: 

“The New York Giants pride ourselves on our practice of hiring employees all throughout our organization on their merits and merits alone. Our record will reflect that our work force is comprised of a highly diverse group of individuals. It is in no small part because of this that we are deeply troubled by the allegations levied against our organization by Mr. Flores in the recently filed lawsuit.

Our exhaustive HC candidate evaluation process included not only speaking with the candidates themselves, but also those who have worked with them and for them in the past, including former players and coaches. Like with any other position within the organization, our evaluations of HC candidates, including Mr. Flores, were completed without any consideration given to the candidates’ race nor ethnicity. We are deeply saddened that Mr. Flores’ perception of the process has led him to believe otherwise.

It is our obligation to the fans, the organization and the candidates themselves to hire what our assessment finds to be the best coach and leader for our football organization. Utilizing all aspects of our search, we confidently and fairly concluded that Mr. Flores was not the best candidate to fill our HC position. Specifically, the leadership portion of the role is paramount for us, perhaps even more so following the tumultuous tenure of the prior regime. We placed organizational stability at a premium when identifying what we believed the ideal leader for our football organization moving forward. To that end, we had genuine questions about Mr. Flores’ ability to be an effective leader for the full roster given how things transpired while he served in the HC role for the Miami Dolphins. This concern specifically led to Mr. Flores being placed behind other candidates for our HC opening, including Mr. Daboll, who was ultimately hired for the role.

We had hoped to keep our specific critiques related to Mr. Flores’ candidacy private so as not to paint him in a negative light and potentially limit other prospective employment opportunities he may have within the league. We value Mr. Flores’ own integrity and privacy in the same way we value that of those employed throughout our organization. However, in light of the impending litigation we have now been placed in a position where our own integrity has been called into question, and we must vigorously defend our actions."

 

That’s a sample merit-based explanation for why Flores may have already been behind Daboll in the Giants’ minds before the interview. What of that can Flores actually refute with facts if Daboll’s deal wasn’t already done before he was interviewed? If he can’t, then I think his chances to prevail in the impending lawsuit are likely pretty low. 

We will see soon enough if documents get made public.

NFL will move for summary judgment or dismissal soon and it will get briefed by both sides so we will see what legal standards and relevant case law is.

They are moving under NY law and section 1981