Jump to content

Brian Flores Fired in Miami


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Dcat said:

 

Good for Jackson.  Perhaps this will all result in far more meaningful accountability on the part of NFL ownership than the practically 100% immunity they have had for the last century.  Goodbye to that!  Finally.  Watch... it is going to happen.  It may take a few years, but this is the catalyst toward more reasonable accountability.    

 

Amen to that, my personal feeling is that sunshine is a terrific disinfectant for any number of problems. I almost always am on the side of more disclosure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, League_Champion said:

 

I agree, and I wonder how common of a practice this is in the NFL. I bet it happens far more often than we can imagine. 

 

 

This is a really big problem as the NFL embraces legal betting on games. 

 

1 hour ago, League_Champion said:

Hue Jackson would be a billionaire if he were paid per loss. 

 

Yes if Haslam had paid him about $27.7 MILLION per loss   :D  which would probably be about 10 times his salary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta wonder if any owners had agreements with each other for one to tank so that the other would have a better chance at the playoffs and they would get a better draft slot. Regardless, I'm certain New England would have had no issues at all with Miami tanking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, League_Champion said:

Hue Jackson would be a billionaire if he were paid per loss. 

 

Hue Jackson's input on all this is a bit curious and I'm not sure it helps Flores.  Is Hue admitting he took extra payoffs to lose games?  That would be self-destructive, wouldn't it?  Or is Jackson just in a "Confessional" state of mind?  Or is he trying to cover his rear end because it was going to come out?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the NFL really is like professional wrestling.

 

That explains the Jags beating the Bills this year.

 

It doesn't really correlate to the throttling the Broncos put on the cowboys because they suck balls except to their fanboi base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dcat said:

 

Hue Jackson's input on all this is a bit curious and I'm not sure it helps Flores.  Is Hue admitting he took extra payoffs to lose games?  That would be self-destructive, wouldn't it?  Or is Jackson just in a "Confessional" state of mind?  Or is he trying to cover his rear end because it was going to come out?  

 

I haven't looked for the interview he did on TV, but the sports guy on news (who also does Browns radio coverage) said he watched the entire 15min and couldn't understand anything. I don't think Hue is saying he accepted extra payment for losing, only that it was offered. He is also repeating stuff he has said before about getting an extension, midway thru his 2nd season (on a 4 year contract) when his record was 1-23, after being told by Haslam following the 1-15 that he was doing a great job. Hue said the extension should be made public, but the team didn't do it. Then fired him midway thru year 3, and laid all the blame for losing on him. Basically he is saying he was used as a scapegoat, and his potential as an NFL coach ruined by the Browns. 

 

Haslam is slime, king of Pilot Flying J and a big player in their massive fraud against their customers, but avoided any major legal headaches. Would not be at all surprised that he is very racist too. 

 

From May of last year

https://www.brownszone.com/2021/03/29/hue-jackson-tells-espn-cleveland-he-was-given-contract-extension-after-starting-1-23-with-browns/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am finding it very difficult to see how Flores has a path to proving racism against the Giants based on what I've read so far.  As for the racism allegations against the Dolphins, very similar.  Unless there is some intermingling of racism and paying him to tank games that was based on color.  How do you prove that?  The racism claims will shake up the media and ultimately the NFL will make a few changes to the process.    

 

I think the $100,000 per loss offer is going to be the part that causes the most trouble, especially now that the NFL is married and on its honeymoon to sports betting.  The two do not mix and there is a lot of money at stake.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Saints ultimately hire Dennis Allen, do they get included in the Flores lawsuit? That would, by default, make the interview for Flores and Aaron Glenn another "sham", would it not? All teams are required by the Rooney rule to interview at least 2 black coaches, so they have no choice in the matter. That pretty much puts them in the same boat as the Giants, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dcat said:

I think the $100,000 per loss offer is going to be the part that causes the most trouble, especially now that the NFL is married and on its honeymoon to sports betting.  The two do not mix and there is a lot of money at stake.  

Didn't take very long for it to rear it's ugly head, did it?

 

That's one big problem with the NFL and betting and often a problem with fantasy football as well. Teams don't necessarily lose by losing. There will always be a pool of players fighting tooth and nail just to play for an NFL team and if you lose, you get first dibs on the cream of the crop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dcat said:

 

Hue Jackson's input on all this is a bit curious and I'm not sure it helps Flores.  Is Hue admitting he took extra payoffs to lose games?  That would be self-destructive, wouldn't it?  Or is Jackson just in a "Confessional" state of mind?  Or is he trying to cover his rear end because it was going to come out?  

 

I think he narced himself out. 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

If the Saints ultimately hire Dennis Allen, do they get included in the Flores lawsuit? That would, by default, make the interview for Flores and Aaron Glenn another "sham", would it not? All teams are required by the Rooney rule to interview at least 2 black coaches, so they have no choice in the matter. That pretty much puts them in the same boat as the Giants, no?

 

Did they decide to hire Allen BEFORE interviewing Flores?  And then allow that information to be leaked to somebody who relayed it to Flores?  Doesn't appear to be the case, NFL.com coaching tracker shows Flores & Glenn have completed interviews, but not Allen. Even if rumors say Allen is there guy, that's a bit different. 

 

That is why Flores refers to the Giants interview as sham. I bet many black coaches who got interviewed (even if eventually offered a job) wondered how many teams were really serious about them as a candidate or were simply satisfying the Rooney Rule. They may feel those interviews are a sham, but harder to prove in those cases. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

That is why Flores refers to the Giants interview as sham. I bet many black coaches who got interviewed (even if eventually offered a job) wondered how many teams were really serious about them as a candidate or were simply satisfying the Rooney Rule. They may feel those interviews are a sham, but harder to prove in those cases.

 

That's the point. It doesn't really matter if the Giants had already decided on someone or if the Saints already plan to hire Dennis Allen. As long as there is a Rooney rule, one could always argue that they are only being interviewed to satisfy the rule making it a "sham" interview. It really has nothing to do with the Giants deciding on and leaking their hire before the Flores interview. But getting rid of the Rooney rule teams would still have to feel obligated to interview black candidates whether they intend to hire them or not because of the perceived racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

 

That's the point. It doesn't really matter if the Giants had already decided on someone or if the Saints already plan to hire Dennis Allen. As long as there is a Rooney rule, one could always argue that they are only being interviewed to satisfy the rule making it a "sham" interview. It really has nothing to do with the Giants deciding on and leaking their hire before the Flores interview. But getting rid of the Rooney rule teams would still have to feel obligated to interview black candidates whether they intend to hire them or not because of the perceived racism.

 

Yes they COULD always say they are a sham, but in the Giants case it seems to be a fact that can be corroborated. That is the interview that Flores labeled a sham, as well as the Broncos since he claims that Elway and the other guy were drunk. 

 

Not sure why we're going down the "if they get rid of the Rooney Rule" path, do you think that is realistic amid even more claims of racism by owners and others at the top of NFL teams? And if they did get rid of it I disagree, teams would not feel obligated to do those interviews. 

 

Maybe your view is "Rooney rule leads to more racism, with sham interviews", which could be true but it would be shocking to see it removed without something else in place. Personally I feel the most qualified people should do the job, don't agree with hiring quotas in general. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Yes they COULD always say they are a sham, but in the Giants case it seems to be a fact that can be corroborated. That is the interview that Flores labeled a sham, as well as the Broncos since he claims that Elway and the other guy were drunk. 

How is it a fact if the Giants are simply trying to adhere to the rules? It's kind of childish to think that a team has to internally refuse to make a decision only until AFTER they interview a black coach and how would that be any different really? The same could be said for the Saints situation. The Saints may have decided to hire Allen already. Maybe that's the real reason the Bears cancelled their interview with him since the Saints GM. But they still have to interview two black coaches according to the Rooney rule. Wouldn't that be no different than the situation with the Giants and wouldn't that be considered racists as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

How is it a fact if the Giants are simply trying to adhere to the rules? It's kind of childish to think that a team has to internally refuse to make a decision only until AFTER they interview a black coach and how would that be any different really? The same could be said for the Saints situation. The Saints may have decided to hire Allen already. Maybe that's the real reason the Bears cancelled their interview with him since the Saints GM. But they still have to interview two black coaches according to the Rooney rule. Wouldn't that be no different than the situation with the Giants and wouldn't that be considered racists as well?

 

The two are DIFFERENT because in one case we have evidence that the Giants already decided on somebody before these interviews. That may not violate the rule, but it certainly goes against the spirit, and says that the interview IS A SHAM.  Yes the Saints interviews MAY also be a sham, heck all interviews of minorities may be a sham. But we don't know that, or have some facts to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, League_Champion said:

 

I'd be shocked if he gets another job at this point. Loose lips sinks ships. 😊

Just curious if the nfl can buy its way out of a problem with a little more collusion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, League_Champion said:

 

Jerrah doesn't care. He'll play the NFL's dog and pony show but it won't mean anything. If he wants Payton, he'll get him. 

If you're a black coach, do you take that interview knowing Jerry is just checking a box?

Edited by rajncajn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information