Teams to be fined, lose picks for unprofessional conduct during draft prospect interviews

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[Spartacus]

Just now, RaidersAreOne said:

 

The fact that professional businesses need this is astounding to me.... But then again in any corporate job the level of nepotism that is shown in the NFL wouldn't fly either. 

[VigilantZombie]

3 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

The fact that professional businesses need this is astounding to me.... But then again in any corporate job the level of nepotism that is shown in the NFL wouldn't fly either. 

While I agree with you, I'll take that one step further, the fact the NFL needs this and took this long to implement it is simply unacceptable. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

While I agree with you, I'll take that one step further, the fact the NFL needs this and took this long to implement it is simply unacceptable. 

This is the first time they've done this? Really?

I was assuming this is the type of boiler plate yearly reminder "try not to break the law in your job interviews" e-mail that every big company sends out. They don't care, they just want positive documentation so anything that happens is considered a one-off situation when it gets escalated.

[VigilantZombie]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

This is the first time they've done this? Really?

I was assuming this is the type of boiler plate yearly reminder "try not to break the law in your job interviews" e-mail that every big company sends out. They don't care, they just want positive documentation so anything that happens is considered a one-off situation when it gets escalated.

 Is it the 1st time they've taken draft picks away from misconduct, no.  It is the 1st time they are doing something before something happens rather than as a reaction to it. I mean this is a reaction to all of the things they have already punished in the past but they are basically now setting up guidelines to avoid them happening in  The future. Guidelines frankly probably should have been set in place after the very 1st incident but they've let it go for years and had to retro-act punishment

[RedGold]

I’m sure it’s going to be as even as unsportsmanlike conduct fines.  

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

It is the 1st time they are doing something before something happens rather than as a reaction to it.

They aren't really doing anything, that's a corporate reminder e-mail just like any sexual harassment training or whatever other yearly stuff. But better than not doing it, I suppose.

Especially since like you said every other year some tone-deaf S&C coach says something wildly offensive and it gets leaked.

Edited January 5, 2022 by ramssuperbowl99

[VigilantZombie]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

They aren't really doing anything, that's a corporate reminder e-mail just like any sexual harassment training or whatever other yearly stuff. But better than not doing it, I suppose.

Especially since like you said every other year some tone-deaf S&C coach says something wildly offensive and it gets leaked.

 Yeah pretty much I guess that's what I meant I am pretty much agreeing with you. It's ridiculous though and I think we both agree on this that this continues to be an issue in the NFL like this is supposed to be a professional sports league and yet we still have tone deaf people within it but then again I mean that's probably the nature of any business

[MWil23]

Live look at most NFL teams

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

 Yeah pretty much I guess that's what I meant I am pretty much agreeing with you. It's ridiculous though and I think we both agree on this that this continues to be an issue in the NFL like this is supposed to be a professional sports league and yet we still have tone deaf people within it but then again I mean that's probably the nature of any business

Yep we agree. Good practice that probably doesn't make a bit of difference when applied, but worth the effort either way.

Though honestly, depending on how much a candidate chooses to reveal personally, sometimes it's harder than you'd imagine dodging all of the -isms. Like the ones that always trips me up is when candidates bring stuff up on their own. Like you're making small talk and they say something about picking up their kids from school. Okay, so the standard, polite work-talk question is "Oh fun! How old are your kids?" Well, now I'm asking about family and a candidate could say I was trying to discriminate against them, since they'd be out for school pickups regularly or something. 

Obviously a world difference away from the stuff S&C coaches are doing, but it's pretty easy innocently asking the wrong thing. Especially without practice.

[Shanedorf]

23 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

but it's pretty easy innocently asking the wrong thing. Especially without practice.

Indeed.
One of the reasons those crazy and inappropriate questions came into vogue was because the player agents had coached these guys up so much- they became robots and just regurgitated the trained answers. " I just want to contribute and will do whatever the coach says"

If you look at how psychological/personality tests work- they strive to put you under stress to see how you react when off-script.
Myers-Briggs, DISC and other formats use this technique to tease out the real, unrehearsed candidate.

In some cases the S&C coaches were given the task of being an ******* - to see how these guys react under pressure.
More often, it was just meat-heads being meat-heads.

[ChazStandard]

Apparently they're also scrapping the wonderlic, which is an odd decision.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/01/05/report-nfl-abandons-the-wonderlic-test/

[kramxel]

I was wondering what it was all about, but it's detailed in the article:

Quote

NFL Players Association prohibits discrimination based on various factors, including race, color, disabilities, religion, sexual orientation, national origin and marital status, and questions on these subjects are off limits. 

 

[ronjon1990]

Should eliminate some of the unnecessary questions, which should be obvious. 

Now, though, what other lines of questioning become disallowed? 

They're going to need to have a pretty solid framework for this to not turn chaotic. "Unprofessional" is a pretty broad definition. 

Some would consider asking about alcohol/substance abuse "unprofessional". Is asking a player about character concerns going to town the line too, if said player was found not-guilty in a court proceeding? Medical issues, usually covered by various privileges? Gang related activities of close contacts, which could imply connection to said gangs of the player? 

While I wholeheartedly agree that nobody needs to be asking if someone's mom is a prostitute or anything regarding their personal sexual preferences, I have to imagine that if someone were doing their due diligence on guys like Aaron Hernandez or Maurice Clarett or Lynn Bowden, Damon Arnette, Darren Waller, Maxx Crosby, JC Jackson, Justin Blackmon, Josh Gordon, Ben Roethlisberger, Baker Mayfield, Ray Lewis, Jameis Winston, Pacman Jones, Rey Maualuga, Michael Vick, Prince Shembo, Joe Mixon, or any of the numerous other prospects with legitimate character concerns, at least some of the questions might be considered "unprofessional" under most definitions- especially when looked at subjectively, as they will be by the player/player rep. 

The pros probably outweigh the cons, especially if they implement these rules correctly. I just hope they indeed do, because if not, it's going to be messy. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by ronjon1990

[Deadpulse]

18 minutes ago, ChazStandard said:

Apparently they're also scrapping the wonderlic, which is an odd decision.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/01/05/report-nfl-abandons-the-wonderlic-test/

It didnt really have a clear correlation to success