NFL 2022 Offseason, Draft, Free Agency

[albionmoonlight]

I'm still gobsmacked by the Ross allegation. If that's true (not just wink & nod tanking but actually paying your coach to lose on purpose), the other 31 owners have to force him to sell the team, IMO. And it isn't even close.

[molson]

Flores interviewed with the Saints today.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm still gobsmacked by the Ross allegation. If that's true (not just wink & nod tanking but actually paying your coach to lose on purpose), the other 31 owners have to force him to sell the team, IMO. And it isn't even close.

Yep I agree, and if they don't they have to explain to their fans why not

[GrantDawg]

The secret is out. Washington Commanders coming to a stadium near you.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

And Harbaugh seems to actually be going to Minnesota .

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I sure wouldn't think so. Just ask Colin K what happens when you speak up about injustice.

however completely fucking imaginary it might be beyond an undeserved victim complex.

CK did more damage to the league than any human in history.

Flores might very well do that to any hopes of a black coach being hired again.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

however completely fucking imaginary it might be beyond an undeserved victim complex.

CK did more damage to the league than any human in history.

Flores might very well do that to any hopes of a black coach being hired again.

They probably don’t have any hope left because why?

[RainMaker]

If Ross offered money to the coach to throw games, that has to be banishment from the league for life, right?

[Solecismic]

If that's the case, then Flores is probably right. Whatever damage he does to his own chances, it shouldn't affect qualified candidates. It's hard to imagine the pipeline the NFL set up isn't just about primed with minority coaches ready for top jobs. Since Black players make up well over half the league, it seems likely the percentage will rise in top coaching jobs soon.

However, Kaepernick... not sure he harmed the league. He definitely played his way out of starting. And with all the media attention, no team could sign him as a backup - something he was qualified to do. How do you sign a backup that the media insists should be a starter? Same for Tebow, by the way.

And when the league tried to help him showcase his current training level, he started playing games and I think at that point GMs and coaches realized he really didn't want to come back.

But the NFL is doing just fine.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If Ross offered money to the coach to throw games, that has to be banishment from the league for life, right?

Yeah. He'll probably claim "misunderstanding" or something, but it needs to be investigated.

Has anything like this ever happened in the NBA, which has had its share of tanking issues?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yeah. He'll probably claim "misunderstanding" or something, but it needs to be investigated.

Has anything like this ever happened in the NBA, which has had its share of tanking issues?

The NBA at one point stepped in with Philly and said you can't just tank every season. Not sure if they threatened them with anything tangible or if it was more of a request.

It's a weird grey area. Teams absolutely do it in all major sports leagues (and the leagues accept it), but the coach seems to be shielded from it to provide plausible deniability. I've also never heard of providing direct financial compensation to lose games. I wonder if that starts getting into a weird legal territory.

The lawsuit seems to imply he was offered money to fix games. That is something we've never seen before. If it was a "hey maybe play some of the young guys next week and see what we have for next season" with a wink, that's been accepted.

[Ksyrup]

Is it true Ross has some kind of financial tie to a gambling site? I've read that but haven't seen it confirmed. If so, that raises all sorts of questions beyond tanking for picks.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Is it true Ross has some kind of financial tie to a gambling site? I've read that but haven't seen it confirmed. If so, that raises all sorts of questions beyond tanking for picks.

Yeah, he invested just under $18 million in a sports gambling site in 2019. Not a site that takes bets but was in business with companies that do. And $100k would be a comically low sum for a head coach to throw a football game for gambling reasons.

Regardless, you probably don't want it out there that your owners are offering money to fix games when you're signing huge deals with sportsbooks.

[RainMaker]

My guess is this gets quietly settled for a ton of money. Just like the Gruden suit will be quietly settled for tons of money.

[AlexB]

On the flip side, why would any coach with aspirations go to Miami with Ross as owner now?

We’ll become attractive only for those really inexperienced and looking for a shortcut route to coaching that they don’t merit, or a retirement option for has-beens.

If this is true, Ross needs to go for the sake of the NFL and for the future of the Dolphins

[albionmoonlight]

Leaving aside the Ross allegations, the suit itself seems to be as much of a press release via lawsuit as a serious attempt to win. Despite public perceptions, it is VERY hard to win an employment discrimination lawsuit. And people who know more about this stuff than I do seem doubtful that the class action thing has much legs (or even really makes sense as a legal matter).

But Flores has succeeded in torpedoing the Dolphins (as AlexB noted, why would any coach with options go to Miami until these allegations are put to bed?). He also made the Giants look really bad for giving him a sham interview. And he's going to get more movement/discussion on the NFL's hiring practices than he would have if he had just given a press conference. I assume (but don't know) that all three of those were some of his goals with this.

And, yeah, he's probably killed any chance he, personally, ever had of coaching in the NFL again. Old white billionaires do not like being challenged, and they have enough free time on their hands to be very spiteful.

But he may have also gotten wind of whatever rumors Ross had put out there about him and realized that his NFL days might already be over. So why not try and do some good on your way out?

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

All that said, I wish the Saints would hire him.

"Hey, NFL? Remember the no-call in 2018? We do. On an unrelated note, we are going to keep Brian Flores relevant and impossible to ignore."

[Ksyrup]

The Belichick thing is so easy to fight. He's not a Giants employee, he has no special information. Judging by the way the text was sent, he wasn't responding to a direct text from Daboll saying he had been offered the job, so he was just going off of what someone told him. It's so easy to say that Belichick had bad information.

Now, the circumstances suggest otherwise, but it's easy for info to go from "he's at the top of the pack" to "unless someone else blows them away, he's the guy" to "he's got the job."

The Ross stuff... seems like more of an invitation to the NFL to take down the owner than the basis for a lawsuit.

[AlexB]

On the Rooney Rule, hasn’t it been common knowledge that in many (most? nearly all?) cases interviewing a black head coach was a box-ticking exercise owners had to go through before appointing who they wanted anyway?

I get why it was introduced, and it’s definitely not right that it happens, but I would have guessed at least 90% of minority head coach interviews were a waste of everybody’s time

Some thing needs to be done, and I’m not sure what the answer is, but the Rooney rule hasn’t had a significant impact, if any at all, and was always going to be so easy to get around.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

He also made the Giants look really bad for giving him a sham interview. ?

Every franchise has given sham interviews to minorities to satisfy the Rooney rule. It is one of the major flaws with it.

[Galaril]

The suit calls out the Broncos Elway and the GM for showing in 2019 to an interview with Flores obviously hungover and an hour late. It goes on to say they met for a few hours in a hotel meeting room for just a couple of hours. Then two days later they hired Vic Fangio. Lol.

[molson]

When a league is setup where it's better for some teams to lose than win, then it's really at worst a gray area to me legally and ethically when a team tries to lose or tries to encourages and incentivizes losing in their organization.

Even the potentially applicable federal criminal statute I saw someone post talks about encouraging managers, executives, etc. to "neglect" their duty as an element of the crime. But it is really neglecting their duty when the leagues have so richly rewarded losing games? Gaining exclusive rights to any college player for a period of years is a lot more valuable than $100k. What if the league offered even more goodies to lose? What if there's some free agency preference, or financial consideration to further reward losing games, or an extra franchise tag? The whole concept of competition is turned on its head as long as the leagues insist on doing this way.

Edit: The real problem seems to be that it's done in secret, which has an impact on gambling, and the coach's individual career. But what if it wasn't? Does the legal/ethical line move if it's a part of the coach's contract that he gets a $100k bonus per loss because the league has seen fit to have a structure in place where it's better to lose than win? Then the gamblers know about it, the coach's future employers know about, the public knows about it (though I'm sure awareness of tanking is already a part of betting lines, this would just put more information out in the open, like the league wants to do with injuries). And everyone is acting in the best interest in the team and taking advantage of league rules to be as successful as possible.

Formally paying a coach to lose isn't any crazier to me than a league rewarding the teams to lose. Either both of those things are OK, or they're both not OK. If leagues offer this great prize for losing, it seems fair for teams to try for and accept that prize. And we know they do, we just don't want them to acknowledge it, even in private. It's so dumb.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by AlexB

On the Rooney Rule, hasn’t it been common knowledge that in many (most? nearly all?) cases interviewing a black head coach was a box-ticking exercise owners had to go through before appointing who they wanted anyway?

I get why it was introduced, and it’s definitely not right that it happens, but I would have guessed at least 90% of minority head coach interviews were a waste of everybody’s time

Some thing needs to be done, and I’m not sure what the answer is, but the Rooney rule hasn’t had a significant impact, if any at all, and was always going to be so easy to get around.

When it was first introduced, it was understood that giving Black candidates experience with the questions and expectations for a head coach was a valuable exercise.

That's why it must have angered him so much to get the bro treatment from Elway and Co. Certainly, Black candidates understood there were interviews when the choice was already made. But they were taken seriously, and the candidates gained insight into how other organizations were run.

For this kind of thing to work, it has to be ground up, and I think the NFL gets that.

[Ksyrup]

As a Broncos fan, I say unequivocally - Elway needs to be put out to pasture.

[Solecismic]

Is it just me, or does the new Commanders logo look like a ferret? All it needs is a couple of whiskers at the front end, and it's ready to start chasing frogs and mice.

[miami_fan]

We will see how this all plays out in court if it gets there. In the meantime, let's see more of how the sausage is made shall we? I am guessing Hue Jackson will be a part of the class action lawsuit if that it what it becomes.

Hue Jackson suggests he was paid extra for losses as Browns head coach - ProFootballTalk

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Is it just me, or does the new Commanders logo look like a ferret? All it needs is a couple of whiskers at the front end, and it's ready to start chasing frogs and mice.

I did not see it before but I see it now

SI

[Kodos]

?

[Ksyrup]

So rumors is Brady will sign a one day contract with NE and retire a Pat. Makes a bunch of sense given he didn't acknowledge NE at all in his goodbye posts.

[Ksyrup]

I still can't believe Washington went with a name that can be shortened to Commies.

[molson]

Maybe it can be a thing that the fans go commando for big games.

[bhlloy]

Or the owner…

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So rumors is Brady will sign a one day contract with NE and retire a Pat. Makes a bunch of sense given he didn't acknowledge NE at all in his goodbye posts.

Did Indy fans make Manning jump through all these hoops?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I still can't believe Washington went with a name that can be shortened to Commies.

Still an improvement over WTF. I mean WFT.

[Ksyrup]

I loved WFT/WTF. Still the best fitting name.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I loved WFT/WTF. Still the best fitting name.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

When a league is setup where it's better for some teams to lose than win, then it's really at worst a gray area to me legally and ethically when a team tries to lose or tries to encourages and incentivizes losing in their organization.

Even the potentially applicable federal criminal statute I saw someone post talks about encouraging managers, executives, etc. to "neglect" their duty as an element of the crime. But it is really neglecting their duty when the leagues have so richly rewarded losing games? Gaining exclusive rights to any college player for a period of years is a lot more valuable than $100k. What if the league offered even more goodies to lose? What if there's some free agency preference, or financial consideration to further reward losing games, or an extra franchise tag? The whole concept of competition is turned on its head as long as the leagues insist on doing this way.

Edit: The real problem seems to be that it's done in secret, which has an impact on gambling, and the coach's individual career. But what if it wasn't? Does the legal/ethical line move if it's a part of the coach's contract that he gets a $100k bonus per loss because the league has seen fit to have a structure in place where it's better to lose than win? Then the gamblers know about it, the coach's future employers know about, the public knows about it (though I'm sure awareness of tanking is already a part of betting lines, this would just put more information out in the open, like the league wants to do with injuries). And everyone is acting in the best interest in the team and taking advantage of league rules to be as successful as possible.

Formally paying a coach to lose isn't any crazier to me than a league rewarding the teams to lose. Either both of those things are OK, or they're both not OK. If leagues offer this great prize for losing, it seems fair for teams to try for and accept that prize. And we know they do, we just don't want them to acknowledge it, even in private. It's so dumb.

Yeah, I think there is a lot of incentive to lose in American sports and this shouldn't be too surprising. I guess the thing that caught me off-guard is how direct it was. But I guess it should be viewed similarly to when an NBA team shuts down their best player in March for a mild ailment. The goal is the same, it's just how you're packaging it to the public.

Likely wouldn't have mattered here but I still think the best solution in other leagues is make the media rights payouts contingent on how you perform. I feel like it wouldn't be too difficult to split the money for the regular season and playoffs and distburse based on that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, I think there is a lot of incentive to lose in American sports and this shouldn't be too surprising. I guess the thing that caught me off-guard is how direct it was. But I guess it should be viewed similarly to when an NBA team shuts down their best player in March for a mild ailment. The goal is the same, it's just how you're packaging it to the public.

Likely wouldn't have mattered here but I still think the best solution in other leagues is make the media rights payouts contingent on how you perform. I feel like it wouldn't be too difficult to split the money for the regular season and playoffs and distburse based on that.

There is then going to be a an even bigger gulf between the haves and the have-nots. I believe there definitely needs to be some way to rearrange things so that failure isn't necessarily rewarded, but we still have some type of parity. I really don't know the solution, but rewarding losing isn't going to well in any league.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There is then going to be a an even bigger gulf between the haves and the have-nots. I believe there definitely needs to be some way to rearrange things so that failure isn't necessarily rewarded, but we still have some type of parity. I really don't know the solution, but rewarding losing isn't going to well in any league.

I think there has to be a non-sledgehammer solution.

One thing I'd like to see is simply preventing teams from picking in the top 3 or top 5 in consecutive drafts or something similar. The NBA, especially, needs something like this but I do think it would help the NFL as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There is then going to be a an even bigger gulf between the haves and the have-nots. I believe there definitely needs to be some way to rearrange things so that failure isn't necessarily rewarded, but we still have some type of parity. I really don't know the solution, but rewarding losing isn't going to well in any league.

I think the salary cap is what maintains parity. I'm not suggesting teams spend based on how well they do, just how big of a check the owner is getting from the league. Would the 76ers have tanked for 5 years if they were getting $40 million less each season from the media deal? Probably not. No owner will accept that.

Probably due for a draft lottery in football at some point.

I don't foresee the payout structure changing because I think the owners like having it setup where they don't have to compete with one another and can always turn a profit no matter how incompetent they are.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

When a league is setup where it's better for some teams to lose than win, then it's really at worst a gray area to me legally and ethically when a team tries to lose or tries to encourages and incentivizes losing in their organization.

Even the potentially applicable federal criminal statute I saw someone post talks about encouraging managers, executives, etc. to "neglect" their duty as an element of the crime. But it is really neglecting their duty when the leagues have so richly rewarded losing games? Gaining exclusive rights to any college player for a period of years is a lot more valuable than $100k. What if the league offered even more goodies to lose? What if there's some free agency preference, or financial consideration to further reward losing games, or an extra franchise tag? The whole concept of competition is turned on its head as long as the leagues insist on doing this way.

Edit: The real problem seems to be that it's done in secret, which has an impact on gambling, and the coach's individual career. But what if it wasn't? Does the legal/ethical line move if it's a part of the coach's contract that he gets a $100k bonus per loss because the league has seen fit to have a structure in place where it's better to lose than win? Then the gamblers know about it, the coach's future employers know about, the public knows about it (though I'm sure awareness of tanking is already a part of betting lines, this would just put more information out in the open, like the league wants to do with injuries). And everyone is acting in the best interest in the team and taking advantage of league rules to be as successful as possible.

Formally paying a coach to lose isn't any crazier to me than a league rewarding the teams to lose. Either both of those things are OK, or they're both not OK. If leagues offer this great prize for losing, it seems fair for teams to try for and accept that prize. And we know they do, we just don't want them to acknowledge it, even in private. It's so dumb.

Is it also a part of the player's contract? Are the players incentivized to try to lose the game as well? That seems to be more of a guarantee that the team would be horrible than the coach.

EDIT: I get what you are saying about the incentives for losing. My suggestion is about efficiency if that is what we are trying to do.

[RainMaker]

Hue Jackson also implied today that he was paid to lose games. Maybe this is more common than we think.

Hue Jackson suggests he was paid extra for losses as Browns head coach - ProFootballTalk

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by AlexB

On the Rooney Rule, hasn’t it been common knowledge that in many (most? nearly all?) cases interviewing a black head coach was a box-ticking exercise owners had to go through before appointing who they wanted anyway?

I get why it was introduced, and it’s definitely not right that it happens, but I would have guessed at least 90% of minority head coach interviews were a waste of everybody’s time

Some thing needs to be done, and I’m not sure what the answer is, but the Rooney rule hasn’t had a significant impact, if any at all, and was always going to be so easy to get around.

I swear I’m not briefing Flores…

Former Dolphins head coach Brian Flores addresses allegations in lawsuit against NFL, three teams

[Swaggs]

I recall thinking that Tomlin was just going to be a Rooney Rule candidate after Cowher left. It seemed like a foregone conclusion that Ken Whisenhunt, the OC at the time, would become the head coach when Cowher retired, but Tomlin apparently 'wowed' them (unsurprisingly given his charisma, in hindsight).

I think there has to be some consequence for owners that purposely and overtly tank like this - possibly criminal. If the NFL and pro sports are going to get into bed with gambling, this kind of stuff can't happen and it is also horrible for the game if fans are paying hundreds/thousands to attend games that the participants are being incentivized to lose. And, the overall integrity of competition affecting who gets in and who misses out on the playoffs. I'd be pretty pissed if I'm another owner whose team didn't play the Dolphins and I missed the playoffs by a game to another team who was on the receiving end of the tank.

[Danny]

Lions making these franchises look like chumps. They've been able to tank for all these years without paying anyone an extra dime

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

When it was first introduced, it was understood that giving Black candidates experience with the questions and expectations for a head coach was a valuable exercise.

That's why it must have angered him so much to get the bro treatment from Elway and Co. Certainly, Black candidates understood there were interviews when the choice was already made. But they were taken seriously, and the candidates gained insight into how other organizations were run.

For this kind of thing to work, it has to be ground up, and I think the NFL gets that.

I agree completely with this last point - just don’t think the Rooney Rule is effective.

TBF I don’t know what the answer is - you can’t force a team to hire a black/minority coach because a quota needs to be filled.

What are the percentages for OC/DC roles? A lot of head coaches often have 10-20 years coaching experience, so is it something that is improving at the level of scout, coaching assistant, positional coach, etc, so there will organically* be a wide pool of black/minority candidates as they rise through the coaching tiers?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Danny

Lions making these franchises look like chumps. They've been able to tank for all these years without paying anyone an extra dime

[rjolley]

Like Marcus Spears said yesterday, and I'm sure others have said before, the problem isn't the Rooney Rule. The problem is that it exists. That owners think that the best candidate has to be of a certain race, like that automatically makes them a good leader and coach or GM. Until that mindset starts to adjust, any rule put into place will have issues.

And the comparisons with how Tomlin, Smith, and other Black coaches have done misses the point too. Just because a Black coach has done well doesn't mean others can do well. It means that people with his experience can do well. If a coordinator who has 10-15 years of experience, is organized, and is a proven teacher has proven to be a good head coach, then those types of qualifications should be considered at regardless of race.

Would love to see the process move towards that.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

it is also horrible for the game if fans are paying hundreds/thousands to attend games that the participants are being incentivized to lose.

I have to imagine that there are several plaintiff-side law firms as we speak who are drafting the class action lawsuit for Dolphins and Browns season ticket holders.

I don't know if there would be any chance of success, but I have to think that the suits will be filed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I agree completely with this last point - just don’t think the Rooney Rule is effective.

TBF I don’t know what the answer is - you can’t force a team to hire a black/minority coach because a quota needs to be filled.

What are the percentages for OC/DC roles? A lot of head coaches often have 10-20 years coaching experience, so is it something that is improving at the level of scout, coaching assistant, positional coach, etc, so there will embryonically be a wide pool of black/minority candidates as they rise through the coaching tiers?

The thing is, I think it's probably a team-by-team thing. Each is run their own way and have different philosophies. I don't think there is a league-wide effort to limit black coaches. So I don't know how you make any changes.

For instance, the Dolphins are owned by a guy who would have some issues with being told "no" by a black man. I'm sure there are other owners like that. But I also think there are owners who could not give a shit what happens as long as they win games.

And I think you're right on the OC/DC/position coach thing. Maybe it's an issue down there and working up. But I also wonder why someone like Bienemy or Leftwich don't have head coaching jobs right now. Black offensive coordinators do seem to be treated much differently than white ones when searching for a head coach.

Not to bring it back to money, but as long as there is no financial motivation to win in the league, there is not as much incentive to hire the best candidates.