Next Cardinals Head Coach
Brian Flores
2/3
(-150)
Vance Joseph
11/4
(+275)
Mike Kafka
5/1
Jonathan Gannon
10/1
Shane Steichen
16/1
Byron Leftwich
20/1
Eric Bieniemy
25/1
Shane Bowen
25/1
Next Colts Full Time Head Coach
Jeff Saturday
4/7
(-175)
Raheem Morris
15/4
(+375)
Shane Steichen
7/1
Wink Martindale
7/1
Eric Bieniemy
16/1
Ejiro Evero
20/1
Leslie Frazier
20/1
Mike Kafka
20/1
The Colts worry me because I could see Irsay really loving Wink.
The Colts worry me because I could see Irsay really loving Wink.
Based on Irsay's public persona, he sure seems like he would love Wink. And as for Wink, on the one hand, this could be his last shot, but on the other hand, do you want to blow your one shot on Indy or wait for next year or the year after?
The Colts worry me because I could see Irsay really loving Wink.
Until he takes a Harry Dunn level shit in Wink’s home bathroom for an hour.
Why would any team even interview him?
If you do and you decide to go with someone else, is he going to sue?
And why would any owner want someone who threw his last owner under the bus?
Quote:
But after what happened in Miami does the nfl really want him back in the fraternity? I’m not so sure.
Why would any team even interview him?
If you do and you decide to go with someone else, is he going to sue?
And why would any owner want someone who threw his last owner under the bus?
Because his lawsuit is ongoing and if teams refused the interview him, he'd could use that against him
Quote:
In comment 16022487 Tuckrule said:
Quote:
But after what happened in Miami does the nfl really want him back in the fraternity? I’m not so sure.
Why would any team even interview him?
If you do and you decide to go with someone else, is he going to sue?
And why would any owner want someone who threw his last owner under the bus?
Because his lawsuit is ongoing and if teams refused the interview him, he'd could use that against him
So you can sue an employer for not interviewing you? WTF.
Quote:
In comment 16022532 Dr. D said:
Quote:
In comment 16022487 Tuckrule said:
Quote:
But after what happened in Miami does the nfl really want him back in the fraternity? I’m not so sure.
Why would any team even interview him?
If you do and you decide to go with someone else, is he going to sue?
And why would any owner want someone who threw his last owner under the bus?
Because his lawsuit is ongoing and if teams refused the interview him, he'd could use that against him
So you can sue an employer for not interviewing you? WTF.
No, it wouldn't be cause for a lawsuit on its own. But if you already had a pending lawsuit where the claim is in part that you are being intentionally excluded from opportunities because of a whistleblowing incident, you might be looking for evidence that the alleged exclusion is continuing.
Is that too nuanced for you?
Quote:
In comment 16022541 Giantsfan79 said:
Quote:
In comment 16022532 Dr. D said:
Quote:
In comment 16022487 Tuckrule said:
Quote:
But after what happened in Miami does the nfl really want him back in the fraternity? I’m not so sure.
Why would any team even interview him?
If you do and you decide to go with someone else, is he going to sue?
And why would any owner want someone who threw his last owner under the bus?
Because his lawsuit is ongoing and if teams refused the interview him, he'd could use that against him
So you can sue an employer for not interviewing you? WTF.
No, it wouldn't be cause for a lawsuit on its own. But if you already had a pending lawsuit where the claim is in part that you are being intentionally excluded from opportunities because of a whistleblowing incident, you might be looking for evidence that the alleged exclusion is continuing.
Is that too nuanced for you?
Thanks for splaining. I'm too stoopid to understand.
Call me crazy or stupid, but it seems it would be difficult to prove what the motive is of an employer who simply chooses to not interview someone. Thousands of candidates of all skin colors are not interviewed for every HC job. Flores can sue anyone he wants, doesn't mean he's going to win the case.
And if you're going to be potentially sued if you interview him and decide not to hire him, what's the difference? You're potentially going to be sued either way unless you interview and hire him (and that's only until you eventually fire him, bc unless you're Belichick, you will be fired or "retired" someday).
I'm not a lawyer, but Flores might have a better case if you actually interview him (but don't hire him), because he can say you only did so bc of the Rooney rule and you never had any intention of actually hiring him.
If you just don't interview him (assuming they're interviewing other minorities), a team can say something to the effect of "we didn't interview a lot of people of all racial backgrounds".
Did the owners secretly draw straws (like, somebody's GOT to interview him) and the Cardinals lost?
If we lose Wink, then maybe Wilks?
Quote:
If a team wants to go defense, there is Steve Wilks.., especially after what he did in Carolina this year. Hopefully Wilks doesn’t go to the Redskins and be the heir apparent when RR either steps down or gets fired. Wilks is a VG coach.
If we lose Wink, then maybe Wilks?
If we lose Wink and can't keep Wilkins I would also look at Sean Desai (currently an assistant with Seattle) or Ejiro Evero (Broncos DC if Payton does not want his own guy)
Call me crazy or stupid, but it seems it would be difficult to prove what the motive is of an employer who simply chooses to not interview someone. Thousands of candidates of all skin colors are not interviewed for every HC job. Flores can sue anyone he wants, doesn't mean he's going to win the case.
And if you're going to be potentially sued if you interview him and decide not to hire him, what's the difference? You're potentially going to be sued either way unless you interview and hire him (and that's only until you eventually fire him, bc unless you're Belichick, you will be fired or "retired" someday).
I'm not a lawyer, but Flores might have a better case if you actually interview him (but don't hire him), because he can say you only did so bc of the Rooney rule and you never had any intention of actually hiring him.
If you just don't interview him (assuming they're interviewing other minorities), a team can say something to the effect of "we didn't interview a lot of people of all racial backgrounds".
By your logic there would never be a case for collusion, but those allegations do happen from time to time, although the cases rarely result in a finding of actual collusion (because it's difficult to prove without hard evidence, as you suggest).
I'm not saying Flores has a winning case in the first place, but he had enough to satisfy cause in bringing the lawsuit. I personally don't think his case is all that strong, and it feels a lot like sour grapes - anything he tacks on from this offseason would feel like more of the same, IMO. But I do think that teams probably do feel a sense of mindfulness about his case as they conduct their offseason hiring decisions.
Quote:
In comment 16022626 Dr. D said:
Quote:
In comment 16022541 Giantsfan79 said:
Quote:
In comment 16022532 Dr. D said:
Quote:
In comment 16022487 Tuckrule said:
Quote:
But after what happened in Miami does the nfl really want him back in the fraternity? I’m not so sure.
Why would any team even interview him?
If you do and you decide to go with someone else, is he going to sue?
And why would any owner want someone who threw his last owner under the bus?
Because his lawsuit is ongoing and if teams refused the interview him, he'd could use that against him
So you can sue an employer for not interviewing you? WTF.
No, it wouldn't be cause for a lawsuit on its own. But if you already had a pending lawsuit where the claim is in part that you are being intentionally excluded from opportunities because of a whistleblowing incident, you might be looking for evidence that the alleged exclusion is continuing.
Is that too nuanced for you?
Thanks for splaining. I'm too stoopid to understand.
Call me crazy or stupid, but it seems it would be difficult to prove what the motive is of an employer who simply chooses to not interview someone. Thousands of candidates of all skin colors are not interviewed for every HC job. Flores can sue anyone he wants, doesn't mean he's going to win the case.
And if you're going to be potentially sued if you interview him and decide not to hire him, what's the difference? You're potentially going to be sued either way unless you interview and hire him (and that's only until you eventually fire him, bc unless you're Belichick, you will be fired or "retired" someday).
I'm not a lawyer, but Flores might have a better case if you actually interview him (but don't hire him), because he can say you only did so bc of the Rooney rule and you never had any intention of actually hiring him.
If you just don't interview him (assuming they're interviewing other minorities), a team can say something to the effect of "we didn't interview a lot of people of all racial backgrounds".
You're right. You're not a lawyer.
You're right. You're not a lawyer.
You say that like it's an insult.
Quote:
You're right. You're not a lawyer.
You say that like it's an insult.
J/K. I have nothing against lawyers. Have some very close family members and friends who are. Some bad apples in every profession.