Flores suing the NFL

[nybf]

Scheduling an interview isn't a crime or even offense imo. Talking to candidates is good for all parties

Scheduling an interview after you've already made the decision who you're going to hire is a shitty thing to do. In no way whatsoever is it good for the interviewee.

[Snake]

Should the Rooney satisfying candidates be interviewed first?

[uscbucsfan]

Should the Rooney satisfying candidates be interviewed first?

They were in the Giants case. Leslie Frasier was the first interview, if Twitter is correct.

[nybf]

You shouldn't be interviewing ANYONE by the time word has reached another coach in another conference as to who you're hiring.

[nybf]

Should the Rooney satisfying candidates be interviewed first?

They were in the Giants case. Leslie Frasier was the first interview, if Twitter is correct.

Who was the other?

[Snake]

Should the Rooney satisfying candidates be interviewed first?

They were in the Giants case. Leslie Frasier was the first interview, if Twitter is correct.

Is it true they need to interview 2 minority candidates now?

[uscbucsfan]

They were in the Giants case. Leslie Frasier was the first interview, if Twitter is correct.

Who was the other?

According to Schefter, lol, Patrick Graham was their 3rd interview.

[Dread]

Scheduling an interview isn't a crime or even offense imo. Talking to candidates is good for all parties

Scheduling an interview after you've already made the decision who you're going to hire is a shitty thing to do. In no way whatsoever is it good for the interviewee.

I agree scheduling an interview after you've made a decision is shitty. I didn't read into tht way, but suppose it's certainly possible. I assumed the Flores interview had already been scheduled when the decision on Daboll was made. But that could be wrong.

[Snake]

Interviews Frazier(black)
Interviews Daboll
Interviews Graham (black)
[word spreads that Daboll is the hire]
Team interviews Flores (black) anyway.

This is racism, or Giants just being dummies as usual?

[uscbucsfan]

Interviews Frazier(black)
Interviews Daboll
Interviews Graham (black)
[word spreads that Daboll is the hire]
Team interviews Flores (black) anyway.

This is racism, or Giants just being dummies as usual?

Frazier was interviewed twice (once in person and once remotely) and Dan Quinn.

There were reports that Daboll may get hired by the Dolphins after his second Giants interview.

[Rocker]

The guy who threw a hissy fit because he thought an admin was secretly editing posts calling anyone a dipshit is rich.

Maybe I...sorry, can't complete the sentence without giggling like Zarniwoop looking at topless pics of Keira Knightly.

[13F11B]

Interviews Frazier(black)
Interviews Daboll
Interviews Graham (black)
[word spreads that Daboll is the hire]
Team interviews Flores (black) anyway.

This is racism, or Giants just being dummies as usual?

Hard to know unless you are on the inside. Perhaps they started negotiations with Daboll but things were not going well so they decided to interview Flores. Unless there are some really good leaks I doubt we will ever know.

[uscbucsfan]

The guy who threw a hissy fit because he thought an admin was secretly editing posts calling anyone a dipshit is rich.

No way...same same?

[nybf]

The guy who threw a hissy fit because he thought an admin was secretly editing posts calling anyone a dipshit is rich.

No way...same same?

Oh yes.

[uscbucsfan]

Hard to know unless you are on the inside. Perhaps they started negotiations with Daboll but things were not going well so they decided to interview Flores. Unless there are some really good leaks I doubt we will ever know.

But...it doesn't hold up for racism here.

Even if the Giants were being idiots, Daboll was the number 1 candidate for Miami because of his Tua connection. They can just say it was insurance in case they couldn't get Daboll...which is likely the truth.

[MJW]

I'm not really bothered by any of this, as a fan.

The Dolphins tried to lose? No shit! What the hell were we doing Week 17 of the 2014 season, when we pulled all our starters in the 2nd half? Are we really going to pretend that a) tanking doesn't happen and b) it doesn't happen at the behest of ownership? I read an entire book about the Philadelphia 76ers openly trying to tank a few years ago. Did people think the owner wasn't at least consulted?

As for the racism part, I don't see it based on this. I'm completely open to the idea it's a thing, and I'm on record as saying that having 1 black coach in a 32 team league is indefensible. But I don't see the "evidence" of it here.

[uscbucsfan]

No way...same same?

Oh yes.

Things are much clearer now.

[nybf]

I'm not really bothered by any of this, as a fan.

As a fan you're not bothered by an owner, who invested in a sports gambling startup, offering $100k per to a head coach to throw games?

[MJW]

I'm not really bothered by any of this, as a fan.

As a fan you're not bothered by an owner, who invested in a sports gambling startup, offering $100k per to a head coach to throw games?

It looks bad, but I believe that's circumstantial at this point. It's an open secret the Dolphins were trying to tank to build up assets. Do you remember how many talented players they traded away during that span? They were "trusting the process." If anything, compensating the coach for subverting his desire to win seems classier than, say, what we did to Lovie Smith.

Now, if something more concrete pops up linking these two endeavors, then I'd want Ross Donald Sterlinged right out of the league in a heartbeat.

[Primeminister]

I'm not really bothered by any of this, as a fan.

As a fan you're not bothered by an owner, who invested in a sports gambling startup, offering $100k per to a head coach to throw games?

Makes zero sense to me.

Also that same owner firing his coach after back to back winning seasons. The coach who refused to fix the games and instead won as much as he could. Yeah I have a problem with that.

[MJW]

As a fan you're not bothered by an owner, who invested in a sports gambling startup, offering $100k per to a head coach to throw games?

Makes zero sense to me.

Also that same owner firing his coach after back to back winning seasons. The coach who refused to fix the games and instead won as much as he could. Yeah I have a problem with that.

I mean...

Boss: "Do this thing. It's part of our long term plan."
Employee: No."
Boss: "You're fired."

I acknowledge there aren't many "real-world" parallels to "tanking." But it isn't really fundamentally different than a business cutting all the costs it can, taking short-term hits in terms of sales and satisfaction, and then using the savings to improve infrastructure going forward. If you explained that to the manager and he refused to go along with it, you'd fire him.

Again, if it turns out that Ross was actually betting against his team - which seems so ridiculous at this point that I'm not even entertaining it - that changes everything.

[kaimaru]

Makes zero sense to me.

Also that same owner firing his coach after back to back winning seasons. The coach who refused to fix the games and instead won as much as he could. Yeah I have a problem with that.

I mean...

Boss: "Do this thing. It's part of our long term plan."
Employee: No."
Boss: "You're fired."

I acknowledge there aren't many "real-world" parallels to "tanking." But it isn't really fundamentally different than a business cutting all the costs it can, taking short-term hits in terms of sales and satisfaction, and then using the savings to improve infrastructure going forward. If you explained that to the manager and he refused to go along with it, you'd fire him.

Again, if it turns out that Ross was actually betting against his team - which seems so ridiculous at this point that I'm not even entertaining it - that changes everything.

Jesus. The NFL isn't like a corporate business. Even in a corporate business, if the owner asks you to do things that are regulated as against the law like tampering and tarnishing the shield by cheating then you have every right to sue them if they fire you.

But this isn't corporate America. It's a self regulated monopoly that is only legal because people love pro sports. They can do shit no corporation can. One instance is no contract in corporate America says we will contract with you for 5 years but, if we decide not to after 3 years you get zip for the rest of the contract.

[Primeminister]

Makes zero sense to me.

Also that same owner firing his coach after back to back winning seasons. The coach who refused to fix the games and instead won as much as he could. Yeah I have a problem with that.

I mean...

Boss: "Do this thing. It's part of our long term plan."
Employee: No."
Boss: "You're fired."

I acknowledge there aren't many "real-world" parallels to "tanking." But it isn't really fundamentally different than a business cutting all the costs it can, taking short-term hits in terms of sales and satisfaction, and then using the savings to improve infrastructure going forward. If you explained that to the manager and he refused to go along with it, you'd fire him.

Again, if it turns out that Ross was actually betting against his team - which seems so ridiculous at this point that I'm not even entertaining it - that changes everything.

The thing the boss was asking him to do is something is against the rules of the NFL. Therefore the boss would be firing him for refusing to break HR rules and thus should be sued.

[MJW]

I mean...

Boss: "Do this thing. It's part of our long term plan."
Employee: No."
Boss: "You're fired."

I acknowledge there aren't many "real-world" parallels to "tanking." But it isn't really fundamentally different than a business cutting all the costs it can, taking short-term hits in terms of sales and satisfaction, and then using the savings to improve infrastructure going forward. If you explained that to the manager and he refused to go along with it, you'd fire him.

Again, if it turns out that Ross was actually betting against his team - which seems so ridiculous at this point that I'm not even entertaining it - that changes everything.

The thing the boss was asking him to do is something is against the rules of the NFL. Therefore the boss would be firing him for refusing to break HR rules and thus should be sued.

Fine with me. Sue him. But like I said, it still doesn't bother me as a fan. Ross wanting to lose short-term to build up assets long term doesn't bother me, and if it did, I don't think I could be a sports fan because it happens regularly in every league in a variety of different ways. We could accuse the Jaguars of trying to "tank" because they sat on $40 mil in cap space all year.

[MJW]

I mean...

Boss: "Do this thing. It's part of our long term plan."
Employee: No."
Boss: "You're fired."

I acknowledge there aren't many "real-world" parallels to "tanking." But it isn't really fundamentally different than a business cutting all the costs it can, taking short-term hits in terms of sales and satisfaction, and then using the savings to improve infrastructure going forward. If you explained that to the manager and he refused to go along with it, you'd fire him.

Again, if it turns out that Ross was actually betting against his team - which seems so ridiculous at this point that I'm not even entertaining it - that changes everything.

Jesus. The NFL isn't like a corporate business. Even in a corporate business, if the owner asks you to do things that are regulated as against the law like tampering and tarnishing the shield by cheating then you have every right to sue them if they fire you.

But this isn't corporate America. It's a self regulated monopoly that is only legal because people love pro sports. They can do shit no corporation can. One instance is no contract in corporate America says we will contract with you for 5 years but, if we decide not to after 3 years you get zip for the rest of the contract.

Again, if Flores wants to sue him, I have no problem with it. That's his right.

If you're saying to me, "you should be deeply bothered as a fan that an owner wanted to tank," I find that ridiculous.

[nybf]

You should be deeply bothered as a fan that an owner wants to fix games.

The jags sitting on cap space is worlds apart from an owner firing a coach because he won't throw games.

[MJW]

You should be deeply bothered as a fan that an owner wants to fix games.

The jags sitting on cap space is worlds apart from an owner firing a coach because he won't throw games.

Were we 'fixing a game' when we pulled all of our starters against the Saints in 2014 for absolutely no reason besides trying to lose? Do you think that was done without the Glazers' consent, if not at their behest?

If there's some line between an owner saying, "I want to lose short term to build assets" and an owner consciously putting his team in a position where losing is inevitable (for the same purpose), I guess that distinction is lost on me.

[nybf]

You should be deeply bothered as a fan that an owner wants to fix games.

The jags sitting on cap space is worlds apart from an owner firing a coach because he won't throw games.

Were we 'fixing a game' when we pulled all of our starters against the Saints in 2014 for absolutely no reason besides trying to lose? Do you think that was done without the Glazers' consent, if not at their behest?

If there's some line between an owner saying, "I want to lose short term to build assets" and an owner consciously putting his team in a position where losing is inevitable (for the same purpose), I guess that distinction is lost on me.

Half of one game is the same as an entire season. It's not a surprise the distinction is lost on you.

[kaimaru]

You should be deeply bothered as a fan that an owner wants to fix games.

The jags sitting on cap space is worlds apart from an owner firing a coach because he won't throw games.

Exactly, its the casual fan that hopes a team tanks. Pulling the starters in the second half of the last game isn't the same as trying to out lose a shitty team you're playing. Lots of teams "tank" the last game resting starters. Some to look at bottom of the roster players.

But for the loyal season ticket holder who lives through season after season of losses, do you think its fair to them that an owner actively wants the team to go 0-16 for the number one pick? Do you think those loyal fans want to see their team playing backups or playing cover zero all game but have the linebackers just not cover or rush anyone? Do you think they want to see the 1976 Bucs. Ineptitude but on purpose? You know he would lose the locker room once the players realize he is pulling starters for backup at key points. But nah let's tank next year for whoever is the top QB in the draft. Screw the players and loyal season ticket holders.

[MJW]

Were we 'fixing a game' when we pulled all of our starters against the Saints in 2014 for absolutely no reason besides trying to lose? Do you think that was done without the Glazers' consent, if not at their behest?

If there's some line between an owner saying, "I want to lose short term to build assets" and an owner consciously putting his team in a position where losing is inevitable (for the same purpose), I guess that distinction is lost on me.

Half of one game is the same as an entire season. It's not a surprise the distinction is lost on you.

What's the difference?

The premise is that everyone should be trying to win, all the time, even when winning is meaningless within the structure of the exercise (winning a title) and losing is potentially beneficially to that goal in the future.

The Glazers violated that tenet. Who cares if it's one play or one game or one season?

So, either we should be asking some hard questions about tanking in general, or we should acknowledge that Ross was simply codifying something that was already happening and proceeding forward in a way that maximized the value in doing so.

[MJW]

You should be deeply bothered as a fan that an owner wants to fix games.

The jags sitting on cap space is worlds apart from an owner firing a coach because he won't throw games.

Exactly, its the casual fan that hopes a team tanks. Pulling the starters in the second half of the last game isn't the same as trying to out lose a shitty team you're playing. Lots of teams "tank" the last game resting starters. Some to look at bottom of the roster players.

But for the loyal season ticket holder who lives through season after season of losses, do you think its fair to them that an owner actively wants the team to go 0-16 for the number one pick? Do you think those loyal fans want to see their team playing backups or playing cover zero all game but have the linebackers just not cover or rush anyone? Do you think they want to see the 1976 Bucs. Ineptitude but on purpose? You know he would lose the locker room once the players realize he is pulling starters for backup at key points. But nah let's tank next year for whoever is the top QB in the draft. Screw the players and loyal season ticket holders.

I think the "loyal ticket holder" who sees the team trading away all it's good players, sitting on it's cap space, and playing Brock Osweiler at quarterback should be able to put 2+2 together. If that fan still chooses to spend money on the team with that in mind, it's not because he believes he's going to witness a lot of winning. Stop pretending fans don't have agency. Nobody makes you watch bad football, especially when it's expensive, and especially when there's no pretense of it being good.

[MJW]

The only thing Ross is guilty of being here is taking "tanking" to it's logical conclusion, and being honest with his coach about it. Nobody has to LIKE it. But y'all are being naive if you think there's something more insidious than that going on here.

[Sanka]

The NFL failure to get rid of this useless Rooney rule is the result of this. Many black coaches like Anthony Lynn, Lovie Smith, Jim Caldwell etc.

The NFL still acts like it's in the 1930s lol, that's why I love what Deion Sanders is doing at Jackson State.

[Draftline]

Makes zero sense to me.

Also that same owner firing his coach after back to back winning seasons. The coach who refused to fix the games and instead won as much as he could. Yeah I have a problem with that.

I acknowledge there aren't many "real-world" parallels to "tanking."

In business strategy there definitely are many real world parallels. Its called suboptimizing when a department or employee tries to improve their KPI at the cost of the company long term. I have had discussion about it and even quit a job (mostly) due to that issue. I just couldn't hammer it into the tiny head of my director (not the overall top manager) that certain markeds and costumers were too risky with the present margins. But dude loved his volume in sale too much.

[MJW]

I acknowledge there aren't many "real-world" parallels to "tanking."

In business strategy there definitely are many real world parallels. Its called suboptimizing when a department or employee tries to improve their KPI at the cost of the company long term. I have had discussion about it and even quit a job (mostly) due to that issue. I just couldn't hammer it into the tiny head of my director (not the overall top manager) that certain markeds and costumers were too risky with the present margins. But dude loved his volume in sale too much.

Fair enough.

And if corporate called and told the appropriate manager that this would be the strategy, and he said, "Hell no, I'm not putting a bad quarter on my resume for the greater corporate good," would he still have a job the next day?