He was asked about the terrible officiating no call near the end of regulation in the NFC championship game. The question included is there any consequences for the officials involved. He never addressed that part of the question. There were follow up questions, but none about that part.
He was asked about minority coaches and extolled the process with the Rooney rule and how it has had a positive effect on not only the NFL, but also other organizations that copied it. Later he was asked why Colin Kaepernick does not have a job in the NFL, and his answer was each team makes it own decisions based on what they feel will help them win. I for one see a contradiction in these two answers. If each team is going to do everything that helps them win, why would you need the Rooney Rule? And obvioulsy there is more to Kaepernick not having a job than no team thinks he can help them.
Why is Jeff no longer on it?
Why is Jeff no longer on it?
Lol
Goodell - ( New Window )
Jeff
And for the sake of argument say a team does sign him as a backup. How long until the question is now directed at that organization - "why won't he start?" "why won't you pay him like the top QBs in the league?"
His personal views and opinions are something he is absolutely entitled to. But organizations are also entitled to not take on a media circus for the sake of a backup QB, and that is essentially all he is.
I more concerned with why he didn't comment on discipline for the refs. That has had a much bigger impact to the NFL than some crappy QB as they put the wrong team in the Superbowl.
He is what a puppet leader looks like...
I guess he deserves credit for the league continuing to grow their top-line - frankly, I think that is more Jones, etc - but it's been at the expense of the quality of the product.
[quote] How come you're not on webtv anymore? Does webtv exist? What is webtv? [/quote
Webtv no longer exists. It was a means to get the internet on your television. It was invented by some Apple people back in the 1990s. Microsoft bought them out, and eventually killed it off.
[quote] How come you're not on webtv anymore? Does webtv exist? What is webtv? [/quote
Webtv no longer exists. It was a means to get the internet on your television. It was invented by some Apple people back in the 1990s. Microsoft bought them out, and eventually killed it off.
would you sign up again if it came back? what would they have to offer?
He was good enough to make a roster without a doubt compared to the garbage in the league at QB. Of course, now time away from the game is a legitimate reason not to sign him.
The Rooney rule is necessary. I mean, Steve Wilks getting fired after one year and being replaced by Kliff Kingsbury should be enough to see why.
He was good enough to make a roster without a doubt compared to the garbage in the league at QB. Of course, now time away from the game is a legitimate reason not to sign him.
The Rooney rule is necessary. I mean, Steve Wilks getting fired after one year and being replaced by Kliff Kingsbury should be enough to see why.
So it sounds like you want a Rooney Rule Plus.
If a minority is hired he has to stay in the job for X number of years.
How many are you thinking?
So why does that not apply to hiring coaches and front office personnel? Why wouldn't a team hire a minority candidate if that candidate gave them the best chance to win?
And how can you say it is working? The Raiders were going to hire Gruden, no doubt about that, but they were "in compliance" because they interviewed one of their assistants who was NEVER going to get the job.
One year the cowcrap hired Parcells and the Lions hired Mariucci. The cowturds did not get fined because they interviewed Denny Green. The lions got fined because Green turned down their interview because he no longer wanted to be used as a figurehead so a team could say they interviewed a minority. Both teams knew who they were going to hire.
And as for Kaepernick, you cannot tell me that Mark Sanchex gave the wAshington team a better chance to win, at least you cannot tell me that and seriously mean it.
So why does that not apply to hiring coaches and front office personnel? Why wouldn't a team hire a minority candidate if that candidate gave them the best chance to win?
Um, I think they do. There are minority coaches and front office personnel in the league, no?
The rule was put into place to fix a systemic flaw.
Minority coaches weren't being hired because they weren't getting enough opportunities. When they did get an opportunity, they weren't always prepared for the interviews. The rule changed that by giving minority coaches interview opportunities to grow/learn from the interview process. Read what several have said about how their past interviews helped prepare them for the next time around.
Additionally, there is evidence that it is working by the change in the number of coaches who are minority coaches and front office personnel in the league now compared to when the rule was instituted.
There are a lot of flaws in this argument, I'll counter it with the simplest of them.
Given CK's views on racism in America, do you REALLY think he would even want to play for a team named the "Redskins"?
C'mon man.
That isn't close to how it works. A lot of teams have backups only as insurance policies and are fine going with unproven, young, CHEAP options. They don't want QB controversies. They don't want backups to stir the pot. If they have the luxury, a good aging veteran who is comfortable being a backup is often the best possible fit.
Mark Sanchez wasn't expected to play. He signed on short notice to backup Colt McCoy. For all we know Kaep wasn't interested. We don't even know if the Redskins attempted to contact him. Sanchez was so valuable that he was replaced with Josh Johnson, another QB signed on very short notice.
Given CK's views on racism in America, do you REALLY think he would even want to play for a team named the "Redskins"?
C'mon man.
absolutely, that would be his dream come true. think of all the virtue signalling. Standing up to the man is way more lucrative than leading your team to the play-offs.
Quote:
As pertaining to Kaepernick, Goodell said one of the best things about the NFL was every team did what was best for itself and would help them win.
So why does that not apply to hiring coaches and front office personnel? Why wouldn't a team hire a minority candidate if that candidate gave them the best chance to win?
Um, I think they do. There are minority coaches and front office personnel in the league, no?
Quote:
And how can you say it is working? The Raiders were going to hire Gruden, no doubt about that, but they were "in compliance" because they interviewed one of their assistants who was NEVER going to get the job.
The rule was put into place to fix a systemic flaw.
Minority coaches weren't being hired because they weren't getting enough opportunities. When they did get an opportunity, they weren't always prepared for the interviews. The rule changed that by giving minority coaches interview opportunities to grow/learn from the interview process. Read what several have said about how their past interviews helped prepare them for the next time around.
Additionally, there is evidence that it is working by the change in the number of coaches who are minority coaches and front office personnel in the league now compared to when the rule was instituted.
Quote:
And as for Kaepernick, you cannot tell me that Mark Sanchex gave the wAshington team a better chance to win, at least you cannot tell me that and seriously mean it.
There are a lot of flaws in this argument, I'll counter it with the simplest of them.
Given CK's views on racism in America, do you REALLY think he would even want to play for a team named the "Redskins"?
C'mon man.
I don't know whether he would have accepted an offer from that team or not. I do know he has to be better than Mark Sanchez.
And if he turned down that offer because he did not like the team's name, or any other reason, wouldn't that blow his collusion case totally? Even if the Washington "Native Americans" didn't think he would sign, wouldn't an offer to him have helped the league with his lawsuit against them?
LOL CRAP O PICK GOOD 1 LOLLLLL
And if he turned down that offer because he did not like the team's name, or any other reason, wouldn't that blow his collusion case totally? Even if the Washington "Native Americans" didn't think he would sign, wouldn't an offer to him have helped the league with his lawsuit against them?
Yes, Dan Snyder would make an offer to CK to help the League in the lawsuit. When has Snyder done anything to help the League.
He was good enough to make a roster without a doubt compared to the garbage in the league at QB. Of course, now time away from the game is a legitimate reason not to sign him.
The Rooney rule is necessary. I mean, Steve Wilks getting fired after one year and being replaced by Kliff Kingsbury should be enough to see why.
I can't imagine the Arizona Cardinals brass had a meeting and the conclusion was "Even though we hired this African American man, he must be fired, because he is African American". It is a reach. As someone who liked Wilks last year, the reports out of the Arizona beats was he looked lost as the coach.
The Kaepernick topic has been discussed ad nauseum. Implying the Wilks fire was racist is in humble opinion, very idiotic.
With that logic, was there only option to replace him with another African American? a Hispanic? See how silly that sounds?
Link - ( New Window )