A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[RichmondRedskin88]

28 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

I think it’s a great idea. If you have two talented, hungry scouts and one is white the other is a POC it helps give the POC some points in their favor. Versus the “oh let’s hire Chad because I know his uncle from 20 years ago”,etc. Its helping to fix a systemic problem, it’s meant to be drastic.

Give points to one candidate over another because of race?  We’re not paying attention to the uncle thing because honestly I don’t see what the point of that was.  You are saying you think it’s a good idea in the NFL which is one of the more diverse leagues next to MLB and MLS to create a employment situation of where you go by race over qualifications because I’ll get rewarded?  This is not the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc.  You have diversity at every level of the NFL except owner maybe.  At this point it’s questionable to use race as reward.  You don’t see the problem with using race as value in one of the largest richest organizations in the world? That would be like your CEO saying we’re an equal opportune employer but if you hire these races I’ll give you a bonus.  

Edited January 27, 2021 by RichmondRedskin88

[Koolblue13]

15 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

Give points to one candidate over another because of race?  We’re not paying attention to the uncle thing because honestly I don’t see what the point of that was.  You are saying you think it’s a good idea in the NFL which is one of the more diverse leagues next to MLB and MLS to create a employment situation of where you go by race over qualifications because I’ll get rewarded?  This is not the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc.  You have diversity at every level of the NFL except owner maybe.  At this point it’s questionable to use race as reward.  You don’t see the problem with using race as value in one of the largest richest organizations in the world? 

70% of the players are black and there is 4 black head coaches is not diverse. 

 

Breaking up the old boys nepotism club is good. It being represented by racial inequality being addressed is hardly something to be upset about.

[Fresh8686]

1 hour ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

Thats sketch.  I get wanting to allow people of all backgrounds to have opportunities but only giving compensation to teams if you lose a POC is a flawed system. 

 

Only reacting to the compensation, which is an incentive to fix under-representation and not reacting to the implicit bias that causes the stark numbers of under-representation is flawed thinking.

[RichmondRedskin88]

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Only reacting to the compensation, which is an incentive to fix under-representation and not reacting to the implicit bias that causes the stark numbers of under-representation is flawed thinking.

NFL had a 89% racial hiring rating a year ago.  Can they improve?  Absolutely.  But the tactic of giving compensation simply on race is flawed.   Would you think it’s ok if a regular company told its managers remember we’re equal opportune employers but if you hire this race we’ll give you a big bonus?  Give a higher pick for diversity or something.  But simply compensation vs no compensation based off race is never a good system.   

[Fresh8686]

Just now, RichmondRedskin88 said:

NFL had a 89% racial hiring rating a year ago.  Can they improve?  Absolutely.  But the tactic of giving compensation simply on race is flawed.   Would you think it’s ok if a regular company told its managers remember we’re equal opportune employers but if you hire this race we’ll give you a big bonus?  Give a higher pick for diversity or something.  But simply compensation vs no compensation based off race is never a good system.   

 

I can't take you seriously when you can't even bother to spend one second focusing on the implicit racial bias in this country which has already been statistically proven to cause under-representation. We don't have an equal opportunity system right now, especially with regard to front office positions in the nfl because of... implicit racial bias and the numbers and history show that as evident.

 

IIRC, you're the guy in the tailgate who was freaking out about overblown BLM "riots" in Richmond, when others living there saw things much differently. I guess I'm wasting my time writing this.

 

Anyways, this'll be my last post about this here because it's becoming off-topic.

 

 

[RichmondRedskin88]

11 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

I can't take you seriously when you can't even bother to spend one second focusing on the implicit racial bias in this country which has already been statistically proven to cause under-representation. We don't have an equal opportunity system right now, especially with regard to front office positions in the nfl because of... implicit racial bias and the numbers and history show that as evident.

 

IIRC, you're the guy in the tailgate who was freaking out about overblown BLM "riots" in Richmond, when others living there saw things much differently. I guess I'm wasting my time writing this.

 

Anyways, this'll be my last post about this here because it's becoming off-topic.

 

 

Ah I’m not surprised you went there but I won’t because this is the stadium not the tailgate. I live in Richmond hence the name.  The person who tried to silence me there is called out here for his views all the time so take that as you will(Plus is known for intentionally trying to annoy people.).  I know the things that happened because I had friends lose their businesses to those riots.  So unless YOU live here like I DO please don’t tell me what happened in MY CITY.   And yes this is off topic because I was addressing FO hiring not events in a city last year.  You took it there not me. So yes this is the end of that discussion. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by RichmondRedskin88

[86 Snyder]

22 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

NFL had a 89% racial hiring rating a year ago.  Can they improve?  Absolutely.  But the tactic of giving compensation simply on race is flawed.   Would you think it’s ok if a regular company told its managers remember we’re equal opportune employers but if you hire this race we’ll give you a big bonus?  Give a higher pick for diversity or something.  But simply compensation vs no compensation based off race is never a good system.   

 

They dont reward a team for hiring a minority.

They dont reward a team for hiring a minority.

They dont reward a team for hiring a minority.

 

Read it again.

[RichmondRedskin88]

4 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

They dont reward a team for hiring a minority.

They dont reward a team for hiring a minority.

They dont reward a team for hiring a minority.

 

Read it again.

You get compensation if someone hires a POC from your organization.  Ok so would you rather I say it would be like your old company gets a bonus because you were hired somewhere else but only if a certain race? I figured the other comparison was easier to comprehend but the old company one is probably the closest. Anyway we’re probably off topic so I’ll just drop this.  I don’t want the thread closed because of pointing out a questionable system. 

[86 Snyder]

4 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

You get compensation if someone hires a POC from your organization.  Ok so would you rather I say it would be like your old company gets a bonus because you were hired somewhere else but only if a certain race? I figured the other comparison was easier to comprehend but the old company one is probably the closest. Anyway we’re probably off topic so I’ll just drop this.  I don’t want the thread closed because of pointing out a questionable system. 

 

Id rather you say it like "hey thats cool, they're trying to help level a vastly disproportionate hiring practice".

[RichmondRedskin88]

4 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Id rather you say it like "hey thats cool, they're trying to help level a vastly disproportionate hiring practice".

Considering NFL was rated 89% for racial hiring it seems they've greatly improved.  As far as supporting the idea that hiring based on simply race should give organizations compensations or not no that’s flawed.  Giving various levels of compensation based on background is definitely something they could do but simply giving compensation or not on race is not a good system.  Anytime you mix race, compensation vs no compensation,and business you have a slippery slope.  Again though I already said I’m not discussing this any further as I don’t want this to get so off topic this thread may get locked. I’m done. 

[86 Snyder]

6 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

Considering NFL was rated 89% for racial hiring it seems they've greatly improved.  As far as supporting the idea that hiring based on simply race should give organizations compensations or not no that’s flawed.  Giving various levels of compensation based on background is definitely something they could do but simply giving compensation or not on race is not a good system.  Anytime you mix race, compensation vs no compensation,and business you have a slippery slope.  Again though I already said I’m not discussing this any further as I don’t want this to get so off topic this thread may get locked. I’m done. 

 

4 coaches, 2 GMs.

 

Also your 89% is wrong.

 

Either discuss it or actually dont please.

[RichmondRedskin88]

7 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

4 coaches, 2 GMs.

 

Also your 89% is wrong.

 

Either discuss it or actually dont please.

I already told you I’m done.  I didn’t make up that stat.  Now if you want get this thread locked be my guest but I’m not gonna be responsible simply because your view on nfl hiring practices is different.  And clearly judging by the likes some agree that it’s a flawed. Not my fault you can’t accept a different view and let it drop. If you persist I’m going to ignore honestly. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by RichmondRedskin88

[86 Snyder]

1 minute ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

I already told you I’m done.  I didn’t make up that stat.  Now if you want get this thread locked be my guest but I’m not gonna be responsible simply because your view on nfl hiring practices is different.  And clearly judging by the likes some agree that it’s a flawed. Not my fault you can’t accept a different view and let it drop. 

 

There you go again, discussing while saying you wont discuss.

[Riggo#44]

[HigSkin]

 

[CommDownMan]

3 hours ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

I already told you I’m done.  I didn’t make up that stat.  Now if you want get this thread locked be my guest but I’m not gonna be responsible simply because your view on nfl hiring practices is different.  And clearly judging by the likes some agree that it’s a flawed. Not my fault you can’t accept a different view and let it drop. If you persist I’m going to ignore honestly. 

 

At minimum you should quote where you found it.

 

edit:

https://spokesman-recorder.com/2021/01/15/nfl-2020-diversity-grades-still-lag-behind/

 

"D+ for HCs; F for GMs; D for CEOs/presidents; A+ for assistant coaches; A+ for players; B for senior administration; B+ for professional administration; and A+ for NFL League Office racial hiring."

 

So that 89% is probably across the board and not specific to things like upper positions. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/11/10/nfl-minority-coach-general-manager-hiring-proposal-approved/6234064002/

 

"• A team that loses a minority assistant coach who becomes a head coach or loses a personnel executive who becomes a general manager will receive third-round compensatory picks in each of the next two drafts.

• A team that loses two minority staffers to head coach and general manager positions would receive three third-round picks."

 

These comp picks are incentive to train/develop vs hire the POC.  The focus is on the positions that are not in that 89% level.

 

edit 2: Not saying it's right wrong or otherwise, I just wanted to understand how/why this is set up and if the values you presented were representative of the true results.  I agree that this is probably a convo that isn't siuted long term for the stadium.

Edited January 27, 2021 by jsharrin55

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think it's an interesting topic...should we have a thread in The Tailgate @86 Snyder and @RichmondRedskin88 or start a private chat? I have views on this new rule too and it would be good to discuss on both sides. 

[86 Snyder]

31 minutes ago, jsharrin55 said:

 

At minimum you should quote where you found it.

 

edit:

https://spokesman-recorder.com/2021/01/15/nfl-2020-diversity-grades-still-lag-behind/

 

"D+ for HCs; F for GMs; D for CEOs/presidents; A+ for assistant coaches; A+ for players; B for senior administration; B+ for professional administration; and A+ for NFL League Office racial hiring."

 

So that 89% is probably across the board and not specific to things like upper positions. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/11/10/nfl-minority-coach-general-manager-hiring-proposal-approved/6234064002/

 

"• A team that loses a minority assistant coach who becomes a head coach or loses a personnel executive who becomes a general manager will receive third-round compensatory picks in each of the next two drafts.

• A team that loses two minority staffers to head coach and general manager positions would receive three third-round picks."

 

These comp picks are incentive to train/develop vs hire the POC.  The focus is on the positions that are not in that 89% level.

 

edit 2: Not saying it's right wrong or otherwise, I just wanted to understand how/why this is set up and if the values you presented were representative of the true results.  I agree that this is probably a convo that isn't siuted long term for the stadium.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/40502237

 

89% was 2018.  82% in 2019.  Havent seen anything more recent.

 

The above link breaks it down but you're correct about the tiered scoring.  Top level positions much smaller.

[CommDownMan]

1 minute ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/40502237

 

89% was 2018.  82% in 2019.  Havent seen anything more recent.

 

The above link breaks it down but you're correct about the tiered scoring.  Top level positions much smaller.

 

"Almost all of this is attributed to drop in head coach of color and general managers of color, because we put additional weight on those positions," Lapchick told The Associated Press.

 

Ok, I'd need all the maths to really get this, but it's not 1 to 1 either.  Good to know.

[RichmondRedskin88]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I think it's an interesting topic...should we have a thread in The Tailgate @86 Snyder and @RichmondRedskin88 or start a private chat? I have views on this new rule too and it would be good to discuss on both sides. 

I would encourage anyone wanting to discuss this to create a thread other in the tailgate or Around the NFL since it is NFL related.  I think it’s a interesting discussion that many would have a view on.  Unfortunately I see too often the threads not be a discussion but rather a attempt to force one’s view on another and if they don’t conform they try to tear them down even if it means trying to take cheap shots. Such as earlier with the person trying to bring up a topic they knew nothing about but tried to use other posters for credibility to try to destroy my view. The topic had no relevance but they choose to resort to any means necessary to in their mind win or make their point.  The fact that multiple people liked and thought that was a appropriate way to respond honestly discourages me from wanting to be part of that thread though tbh. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by RichmondRedskin88

[Andre The Giant]

Includes interview w/ the new Front Office.

 

 

[Est.1974]

53 minutes ago, Andre The Giant said:

Includes interview w/ the new Front Office.

 

 

Insightful comment in their being in starts upfront with the lines, then with your QB. Long term deal for Scherff, extension for Allen, move for a QB. Get it all done.

 

Oh, and Rivera sure does have a whole load of authority. Got himself a good gig here.

[RWJ]

24 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Insightful comment in their being in starts upfront with the lines, then with your QB. Long term deal for Scherff, extension for Allen, move for a QB. Get it all done.

 

Oh, and Rivera sure does have a whole load of authority. Got himself a good gig here.

When they/whoever said move for a QB did they specify or did it sound more like a trade or draft of a QB?

[Spearfeather]

7 hours ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

Ah I’m not surprised you went there but I won’t because this is the stadium not the tailgate. I live in Richmond hence the name.  The person who tried to silence me there is called out here for his views all the time so take that as you will(Plus is known for intentionally trying to annoy people.).  I know the things that happened because I had friends lose their businesses to those riots.  So unless YOU live here like I DO please don’t tell me what happened in MY CITY.  

 

I wasn't in the Tailgate to see the discussion, but I second this.

If someone said the riots in Richmond were bad ... They were right.

And anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about or their judgement should seriously be questioned.

 

 

[method man]

I kind of get the comp picks for hiring minorities thing as a means of fostering minority talent in an old boys club but 2 3rd round picks is way too excessive. It should be a single Day 3 pick