ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Brian Flores Discrimination Lawsuit vs. NFL, et al.

Sorry, I don’t buy the the “body type” excuse. It’s absurd to think there hasn’t been one (or many) white guy that’s capable of playing the corner position as good or better than any of the ones that have played the position in the nfl & the majority of college for the last 40 years. Pure racism, no doubt.

Good luck with that one. I was told by many black friends and colleagues that you cannot be racist against white people. Even if it means the complete eradication of the white race. Essentially, there is no vindication until whites are put through 200 years of slavery to make up for it. This might be fringe and not the mainstream thought, I don’t know. I used to think I knew. Now I just keep my dead bolt on.
 
Last edited:
Good luck with that one. I was told by many black friends and colleagues that you cannot be racist against white people. Even if it means the complete eradication of the white race. Essentially, there is no vindication until whites are put through 200 years of slavery to make up for it. This might be fringe and not the mainstream thought, I don’t know. I used to think I knew. Now I just keep my dead bolt on.

Well, that’s racist of them. Period.
 
“Who is the best White CB in college today?”

Lol. There aren’t any. I’m not sure why either. White receivers succeed against black corners all the time but I guess coaches from all races think that white guys can’t play the position so they get moved early on in pop Warner & high school. It’s as racist as it gets but you won’t hear a peep out about it from any of the people that are bitching about Flores today. Btw, there are more stories coming out about how much of an ahole the guy is. Maybe they just didn’t like the guy and didn’t wanna work w/ him, kinda like harbaugh. Isn’t that possible?
101 percent probable.
The NFL has too much money involved to do that stuff. If the guy's a good coach he'll get a chance.
If he's toxic and doing interviews with a chip in his shoulder.....there's that too
 
Sorry, I don’t buy the the “body type” excuse. It’s absurd to think there hasn’t been one (or many) white guy that’s capable of playing the corner position as good or better than any of the ones that have played the position in the nfl & the majority of college for the last 40 years. Pure racism, no doubt.
Jason Seahorn the last one who was decent...???
 
Or, how about black corners are simply far superior to white ones because they’re black and more gifted athletically than white ones. Let that sink in a little. How many race warriors would accept this idea? Likely all of them. Does that then not make them racist or do they just get a pass perpetuating double standards? Black football and basketball players are far superior to white ones in general, evidenced by the incredible disproportion of blacks to whites being hired by the NFL 70/30 and NBA, right? Or, is that a systemic racism, where GMs don’t hire enough whites because they wrongfully label them as lesser athletically? So this is either racism or simply a hard to swallow fact that blacks are just better athletes, something I think most accept. Where are the people calling this racism? Imagine the outrage if that same person, willing to accept that blacks are better athletes, heard someone say that whites were better coaches. Not my thoughts, but chew on that bs for a minute.

What you have over the years is that there is massive racial stereotyping going on....much to the point that a lot of may not even attempt certain sports and positions post high school thinking it's a dead end.

RB's/CB's are pretty much on par...
Non white


QB's have seen a shift from white to black but you will see a shift back to white. It's actually happening right now.

TE's went from about 50/50 to seemingly white heavy
 
“Who is the best White CB in college today?”

Lol. There aren’t any. I’m not sure why either. White receivers succeed against black corners all the time but I guess coaches from all races think that white guys can’t play the position so they get moved early on in pop Warner & high school. It’s as racist as it gets but you won’t hear a peep out about it from any of the people that are bitching about Flores today. Btw, there are more stories coming out about how much of an ahole the guy is. Maybe they just didn’t like the guy and didn’t wanna work w/ him, kinda like harbaugh. Isn’t that possible?
I don’t believe it’s the college coach saying it. It’s at the HS level where we do not see elite White CB.

However, we see the Elite White safety
 
Does the Mike McDaniel hire dilute the lawsuit ?

Lovie Smith is also going to become HC of the Texans, according to ESPN. As a Bears fan I never really understood why Lovie got the pink slip from the Bears. He got fired after a 10-win season, and then the Bears turned around and hired a string of bad head coaches to replace him: Marc Trestman, followed by John Fox, followed by Matt Nagy. Sometimes I am astounded at how many dumb people run NFL teams.

Unfortunately for Lovie I think the Texans are one of the more poorly run NFL franchises, so good luck with that gig. But I guess most head coach picks are heading into losing situations, otherwise the guy before him wouldn't have been fired. But there are some places that are just worse than others, and the Texans are probably one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sluggo69
Lovie Smith is also going to become HC of the Texans, according to ESPN. As a Bears fan I never really understood why Lovie got the pink slip from the Bears. He got fired after a 10-win season, and then the Bears turned around and hired a string of bad head coaches to replace him: Marc Trestman, followed by John Fox, followed by Matt Nagy. Sometimes I am astounded at how many dumb people run NFL teams.

Unfortunately for Lovie I think the Texans are one of the more poorly run NFL franchises, so good luck with that gig. But I guess most head coach picks are heading into losing situations, otherwise the guy before him wouldn't have been fired. But there are some places that are just worse than others, and the Texans are probably one of them.
Lovie is an awful hire
 
Lovie is an awful hire

What is that opinion based on? Lovie's teams generally have good defenses, and from what I know about him, his players love him and play hard for him. To be sure he is no Bill Belichick, but there are probably a dozen NFL head coaches who are no better than Lovie. He'll need to find a talented OC, but until the Deshaun Watson situation is figured out, the Texans figure to stink no matter who the HC is. The Texans' front office is a clown show. Trading away DeAndre Hopkins could have been one of the dumbest trades in NFL history. If the Texans win 6 game next year, that will be a good year.
 
What is that opinion based on? Lovie's teams generally have good defenses, and from what I know about him, his players love him and play hard for him. To be sure he is no Bill Belichick, but there are probably a dozen NFL head coaches who are no better than Lovie. He'll need to find a talented OC, but until the Deshaun Watson situation is figured out, the Texans figure to stink no matter who the HC is. The Texans' front office is a clown show. Trading away DeAndre Hopkins could have been one of the dumbest trades in NFL history. If the Texans win 6 game next year, that will be a good year.

I'm just hoping Belichick doesn't have 2 Lovie's in his phone.

:):):):):)
 
  • Like
Reactions: francade
I'm just hoping Belichick doesn't have 2 Lovie's in his phone.

:):):):):)
True! I would have loved to have seen the look on Belichick's face when he realized he texted congratulations to the wrong Brian for being selected as the next NYG HC. I'll bet a lot of bad words came out of his mouth.
 
I was told by many black friends

lie-detector-maury.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kontiki09
What is that opinion based on? Lovie's teams generally have good defenses, and from what I know about him, his players love him and play hard for him. To be sure he is no Bill Belichick, but there are probably a dozen NFL head coaches who are no better than Lovie. He'll need to find a talented OC, but until the Deshaun Watson situation is figured out, the Texans figure to stink no matter who the HC is. The Texans' front office is a clown show. Trading away DeAndre Hopkins could have been one of the dumbest trades in NFL history. If the Texans win 6 game next year, that will be a good year.
He missed the Playoffs in 5 of his last 6 seasons with the Bears and got fired

He was 8 and 24 in his last two seasons in the nfl with Tampa Bay and got fired.

Then he was awful in college at Illinois going 17 and 39 in five seasons and got fired there too

What has he done in the last 10 years to deserve a head coaching position in the NFL?
 
He missed the Playoffs in 5 of his last 6 seasons with the Bears and got fired

He was 8 and 24 in his last two seasons in the nfl with Tampa Bay and got fired.

Then he was awful in college at Illinois going 17 and 39 in five seasons and got fired there too

What has he done in the last 10 years to deserve a head coaching position in the NFL?
Willingness to sign a one year contract knowing he will be fired
 
No doubt. The social justice warriors won’t stop until the roles are reversed and then white society is destroyed by every means necessary. The commies do the same. You know the theory right? History has countless examples. Some very scary ones. Equality is always a good goal until it becomes equality of outcome. Then it gets violent and goes down hill from there. The end result is eradication while the ignorant masses get caught off guard.
To your point, equality of outcome is a 100% socialistic concept while equality of opportunity is a 100% capitalistic necessity. Problem is, capitalism isn’t fair, and it doesn’t either PROMISE or DELIVER economic equality.

In fact, it’s BASED ON unequal-outcome differentials where one person’s ADVANTAGE invariably comes at the price of another’s DISADVANTAGE. Just look at the history of MERCANTILISM.

Acquire for cheap and sell at as high a markup as the market will bear. ALSO KNOWN AS TRADE.

When ENERGY WAS CHEAP and we were REINDUSTRIALIZING THE WORLD after WWII, the notion arose in this country that we could have CAPITALISM and PERMANENT OVERALL PROSPERITY at the same time.

And for a time, we could. Because one barrel of oil was – and still is – equal to 8 years of one man working 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Unfortunately, hydrocarbon EXTRACTION COSTS are now much higher. So, the inherent contradiction between CAPITALISM AND EQUALITY, which had receded, is now BACK ON THE TABLE.

The people today most UNEQUAL are the VARIOUS MINORITIES. But just because the LINGUA FRANCA of the insurgency they’ve mounted (yes, strong words and usually reserved for groups on the Right) is SOCIAL JUSTICE, don’t confuse the FIELD OF BATTLE for the NATURE OF THE CONFLICT ITSELF.

What’s actually taking place is a CLASSIC POWER STRUGGLE. In my world – where trade, negotiating and security are paramount – who one lines up with once the gloves fully come off generally depends on who one thinks will ultimately WIN.

Because any abuses now practiced by those in power will be MIRRORED by any competing groups that ATTAIN POWER IN THE FUTURE. We're all human in THAT WAY, too. That’s why it’s not only essential to CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES but also to CHOOSE YOUR LOYALTIES with the UTMOST CARE.

The point is TO SURVIVE.
 
Last edited:
To your point, equality of outcome is a 100% socialistic concept while equality of opportunity is a 100% capitalistic necessity. Problem is, capitalism isn’t fair and it doesn’t either PROMISE or DELIVER economic equality.

In fact, it’s BASED ON unequal-outcome differentials where one person’s ADVANTAGE invariably comes at the price of another’s DISADVANTAGE. Just look at the history of MERCANTILISM.

Acquire for cheap and sell at as high a markup as the market will bear. ALSO KNOWN AS TRADE.

When ENERGY WAS CHEAP and we were REINDUTRIALIZING THE WORLD after WWII, the notion arose in this country that we could have CAPITALISM and PERMANENT OVERALL PROSPERITY at the same time.

And for a time, we could. Because one barrel of oil was – and still is – equal to 8 years of one man working 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Unfortunately, hydrocarbon EXTRACTION COSTS are now much higher. So, the inherent contradiction between CAPITALISM AND EQUALITY, which had receded, is now BACK ON THE TABLE.

The people today most UNEQUAL are the VARIOUS MINORITIES. But just because the LINGUA FRANCA of the insurgency they’ve mounted (yes, strong words and usually reserved for groups on the Right) is SOCIAL JUSTICE, don’t confuse the FIELD OF BATTLE for the NATURE OF THE CONFLICT ITSELF.

What’s actually taking place is a CLASSIC POWER STRUGGLE. In my world – where trade, negotiating and security are paramount – who one lines up with once the gloves fully come off generally depends on who one thinks will ultimately WIN.

Because any abuses now practiced by those in power will be MIRRORED by any competing groups that ATTAIN POWER IN THE FUTURE. We're all human in THAT WAY, too. That’s why it’s not only essential to CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES but also to CHOOSE YOUR LOYALTIES with the UTMOST CARE.

The point is TO SURVIVE.

Yep. About right. As a historian, I know this lesson all too well. You can’t stop it. It always happens. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you.
 
“I don’t believe it’s the college coach saying it. It’s at the HS level where we do not see elite White CB.

However, we see the Elite White safety”

That’s what I said. The pop Warner & high school coaches move white players from the corner position. It’s racist, but we won’t hear a peep from the social justice warriors on it. And there are plenty of “elite” white players in the nfl at every single position, except corner. It’s as plain as day, but instead of complaining about it, these same social justice warriors that are complaining about Brian Flores being fired today just ignore it or say things like “at least there’s some elite white safeties”. Lol. They don’t even hear their own racism when it comes out of their mouths. Call it both ways and maybe there will be some credibility to their complaints about racism against blacks in sports.
 
“To your point, equality of outcome is a 100% socialistic concept while equality of opportunity is a 100% capitalistic necessity. Problem is, capitalism isn’t fair and it doesn’t either PROMISE or DELIVER economic equality.”

🤮🤮
Maybe we should just scrap it (capitalism) then & subscribe more to the CCP. Communism & socialism have worked so well in the past. I say we go w/ that.
 
To your point, equality of outcome is a 100% socialistic concept while equality of opportunity is a 100% capitalistic necessity. Problem is, capitalism isn’t fair and it doesn’t either PROMISE or DELIVER economic equality.

In fact, it’s BASED ON unequal-outcome differentials where one person’s ADVANTAGE invariably comes at the price of another’s DISADVANTAGE. Just look at the history of MERCANTILISM.

Acquire for cheap and sell at as high a markup as the market will bear. ALSO KNOWN AS TRADE.

When ENERGY WAS CHEAP and we were REINDUTRIALIZING THE WORLD after WWII, the notion arose in this country that we could have CAPITALISM and PERMANENT OVERALL PROSPERITY at the same time.

And for a time, we could. Because one barrel of oil was – and still is – equal to 8 years of one man working 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Unfortunately, hydrocarbon EXTRACTION COSTS are now much higher. So, the inherent contradiction between CAPITALISM AND EQUALITY, which had receded, is now BACK ON THE TABLE.

The people today most UNEQUAL are the VARIOUS MINORITIES. But just because the LINGUA FRANCA of the insurgency they’ve mounted (yes, strong words and usually reserved for groups on the Right) is SOCIAL JUSTICE, don’t confuse the FIELD OF BATTLE for the NATURE OF THE CONFLICT ITSELF.

What’s actually taking place is a CLASSIC POWER STRUGGLE. In my world – where trade, negotiating and security are paramount – who one lines up with once the gloves fully come off generally depends on who one thinks will ultimately WIN.

Because any abuses now practiced by those in power will be MIRRORED by any competing groups that ATTAIN POWER IN THE FUTURE. We're all human in THAT WAY, too. That’s why it’s not only essential to CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES but also to CHOOSE YOUR LOYALTIES with the UTMOST CARE.

The point is TO SURVIVE.
What s bunch of nonsense
 
Yep. About right. As a historian, I know this lesson all too well. You can’t stop it. It always happens. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you.
This is why today’s political polarization is so dangerous. Any faction can become vulnerable to any other faction’s cadre of true believers. No one is safe.

We need to return to a SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE. But that becomes difficult when there are economic and public heath pressures, and everything hidden is in the process of BEING REVEALED electronically.

Everyone’s thoughts – like pieces of SPACE JUNK -- are now circulating in cyberspace. Unfortunately, FULL PSYCHOLOGICAL DISCLOSURE has a negative effect on civility.

And sports are merely one example.
 
This is why today’s political polarization is so dangerous. Any faction can become vulnerable to any other faction’s cadre of true believers. No one is safe.

We need to return to a SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE. But that becomes difficult when there are economic and public heath pressures, and everything hidden is in the process of BEING REVEALED electronically.

Everyone’s thoughts – like pieces of SPACE JUNK -- are now circulating in cyberspace. Unfortunately, FULL PSYCHOLOGICAL DISCLOSURE has a negative effect on civility.

And sports are merely one example.
Agree. I truly think the "right wing" side of the coin is safer for a variety of reasons right now. I say "right wing" because today's right wing is actually pretty damn moderate. By right wing, I do not mean the crazy very very small racist minority that support Trump. A better word would be moderate Republican. It is far more in the corner of status quo, which while not perfect, pumps the breaks on a lot of the radicalism and absolute ridiculousness that a weak and spoiled culture is finding itself concerned with. I think the smart folks are the one's that take pause and say, hold on a minute, perhaps hard work should still be rewarded, men shouldn't be smashing women's swimming records, and morality still has a place. Perhaps there is a dangerous end to "progress". History has proven that most progress is good. Thank God for MLK, JFK, LBJ, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act. Thank God we don't live in a nation like that. Thank God for a lot of progress. However, when does progress eventually tip into the "too much of a good thing" category? What more is in the bag? Will dogs have citizenship in 20 years? Will MD's get paid the same as fast food workers? Will white people need to experience slavery? IDK. The liberal end is the far more radical and its far left goals seem far less democratic or capitalist these days than it used to. History has produced many evils on both sides of the spectrum (Hitler vs Stalin vs Mao), but I think the liberal slant in the country, even amongst conservatives (most Republicans would have been Democrats based on their beliefs 10 years ago), makes the Republican party fairly moderate (with the exception of Trump, who likes to ignite division). While I am not scared of Trump, I can see why some would be. I'm not a fan of really anyone politically, but far left agenda is truly scary and far more extreme in America than it ever has been. I think anything that threatens freedom of speech, religion, press, privacy, choice and a variety of other basic inalienable rights, while at the same time opposes morality, threatens tyranny, denies science and biology, silences critics, and aims squarely for complete equity of outcome is downright un-American and scares the literal hell out of me. From that angle, the true far left agenda, (the one most arm-chair democrats don't see or accept as slowly creeping into their lives like a serpent, while they possibly unknowingly fully support these idiotic ideas and leaders that want to squeeze every ounce of control by any means possible), scares the piss out of me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4-4-3
“The crazy very, very small racist minority that support Trump” ?

What world are you living in ?

Is that your assessment of the 74,222,958 citizens who voted for Trump ?

That they were the 74,222,958 “crazy, very, very small racist minority who voted for Trump” ?
 
He missed the Playoffs in 5 of his last 6 seasons with the Bears and got fired

He was 8 and 24 in his last two seasons in the nfl with Tampa Bay and got fired.

Then he was awful in college at Illinois going 17 and 39 in five seasons and got fired there too

What has he done in the last 10 years to deserve a head coaching position in the NFL?

You're looking only at Smith's last 10 years. Why is that a fair measure of the man? While it is true the Bears missed the playoffs in 5 of his last 6 years, the Bears' record over those 6 years was 52-44. In the NFL, that is a pretty decent record. The Bears just had the misfortune of being in a tough division, with the Packers and the Vikings. The Vikings have been up and down, but the Packers have been one of the NFL's strongest teams for several decades.

While Smith was the HC of the Bears he went to the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman at QB. REX GROSSMAN for God's sake! He also got stuck with Kyle Orton for his QB for a run of several years. His teams always played exceptional defense, but had no QB. Finally the Bears' GM decided maybe the team needed a QB, and he went out and traded Kyle Orton, two first round picks plus a third round pick for Jay Cutler. Cutler had a million dollar arm but a ten cent head. In that respect, Cutler reminded me a lot of Jeff George.

The year the Bears fired Smith the Bears went 10-6. Smith's successor, Marc Trestman, then went 8-8 and 5-11.

When Smith was hired as the HC of Tampa Bay, he was taking over a team that had gone 4-12. They gave Smith 2 years to right the ship, and then fired him. I don't really follow TB, but I know they were a bad to middling team for decades before they hired Arians, and then convinced Tom Brady (the GOAT) to QB the team for the last couple of years. So while Lovie didn't distinguish himself at TB, outside of Arians, mostly nobody has for a couple of decades.

As for Illinois, I really don't know what happened there, except to say that Illinois has traditionally been one of the B10 doormat teams for multiple decades. I grew up in Illinois, and I can tell you that the good HS players in the Chicago area just don't care about going there. So Illinois' recruiting has been lackluster at best for a long time. Dick Butkus was probably the last big name they recruited out of the Chicago area, and he retired from the Bears in 1973. It doesn't really surprise me that Smith couldn't turn things around there.

Smith's teams have always played good defense. He is professional and by every account I have read, his players uniformly love him and play hard for him. His biggest weakness is that he can be a poor game manager, and that has sometimes been a problem for him.

I am not going to tell you that Smith is a great hire, but in my book he certainly isn't an "awful" hire, as you characterized it. Houston needs a coach that can instill some discipline in it, and maybe that is why the owner hired him. I guess we will see. But unless Deshaun Watson comes back to play for the Texans, it will be another long year for them.
 
You're looking only at Smith's last 10 years. Why is that a fair measure of the man? While it is true the Bears missed the playoffs in 5 of his last 6 years, the Bears' record over those 6 years was 52-44. In the NFL, that is a pretty decent record. The Bears just had the misfortune of being in a tough division, with the Packers and the Vikings. The Vikings have been up and down, but the Packers have been one of the NFL's strongest teams for several decades.

While Smith was the HC of the Bears he went to the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman at QB. REX GROSSMAN for God's sake! He also got stuck with Kyle Orton for his QB for a run of several years. His teams always played exceptional defense, but had no QB. Finally the Bears' GM decided maybe the team needed a QB, and he went out and traded Kyle Orton, two first round picks plus a third round pick for Jay Cutler. Cutler had a million dollar arm but a ten cent head. In that respect, Cutler reminded me a lot of Jeff George.

The year the Bears fired Smith the Bears went 10-6. Smith's successor, Marc Trestman, then went 8-8 and 5-11.

When Smith was hired as the HC of Tampa Bay, he was taking over a team that had gone 4-12. They gave Smith 2 years to right the ship, and then fired him. I don't really follow TB, but I know they were a bad to middling team for decades before they hired Arians, and then convinced Tom Brady (the GOAT) to QB the team for the last couple of years. So while Lovie didn't distinguish himself at TB, outside of Arians, mostly nobody has for a couple of decades.

As for Illinois, I really don't know what happened there, except to say that Illinois has traditionally been one of the B10 doormat teams for multiple decades. I grew up in Illinois, and I can tell you that the good HS players in the Chicago area just don't care about going there. So Illinois' recruiting has been lackluster at best for a long time. Dick Butkus was probably the last big name they recruited out of the Chicago area, and he retired from the Bears in 1973. It doesn't really surprise me that Smith couldn't turn things around there.

Smith's teams have always played good defense. He is professional and by every account I have read, his players uniformly love him and play hard for him. His biggest weakness is that he can be a poor game manager, and that has sometimes been a problem for him.

I am not going to tell you that Smith is a great hire, but in my book he certainly isn't an "awful" hire, as you characterized it. Houston needs a coach that can instill some discipline in it, and maybe that is why the owner hired him. I guess we will see. But unless Deshaun Watson comes back to play for the Texans, it will be another long year for them.
He's been terrible for over 10 years. No way should he get an nfl job.

Got fired in 5 seasons at Illinois. Was awful

2 seasons at Tampa were awful. Got canned.

He was also the DC of the Texans this year. His defense ranked 31st in ppg out of 32 teams

I have no idea how this guy got hired. One of the worst I've seen
 
You're looking only at Smith's last 10 years. Why is that a fair measure of the man? While it is true the Bears missed the playoffs in 5 of his last 6 years, the Bears' record over those 6 years was 52-44. In the NFL, that is a pretty decent record. The Bears just had the misfortune of being in a tough division, with the Packers and the Vikings. The Vikings have been up and down, but the Packers have been one of the NFL's strongest teams for several decades.

While Smith was the HC of the Bears he went to the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman at QB. REX GROSSMAN for God's sake! He also got stuck with Kyle Orton for his QB for a run of several years. His teams always played exceptional defense, but had no QB. Finally the Bears' GM decided maybe the team needed a QB, and he went out and traded Kyle Orton, two first round picks plus a third round pick for Jay Cutler. Cutler had a million dollar arm but a ten cent head. In that respect, Cutler reminded me a lot of Jeff George.

The year the Bears fired Smith the Bears went 10-6. Smith's successor, Marc Trestman, then went 8-8 and 5-11.

When Smith was hired as the HC of Tampa Bay, he was taking over a team that had gone 4-12. They gave Smith 2 years to right the ship, and then fired him. I don't really follow TB, but I know they were a bad to middling team for decades before they hired Arians, and then convinced Tom Brady (the GOAT) to QB the team for the last couple of years. So while Lovie didn't distinguish himself at TB, outside of Arians, mostly nobody has for a couple of decades.

As for Illinois, I really don't know what happened there, except to say that Illinois has traditionally been one of the B10 doormat teams for multiple decades. I grew up in Illinois, and I can tell you that the good HS players in the Chicago area just don't care about going there. So Illinois' recruiting has been lackluster at best for a long time. Dick Butkus was probably the last big name they recruited out of the Chicago area, and he retired from the Bears in 1973. It doesn't really surprise me that Smith couldn't turn things around there.

Smith's teams have always played good defense. He is professional and by every account I have read, his players uniformly love him and play hard for him. His biggest weakness is that he can be a poor game manager, and that has sometimes been a problem for him.

I am not going to tell you that Smith is a great hire, but in my book he certainly isn't an "awful" hire, as you characterized it. Houston needs a coach that can instill some discipline in it, and maybe that is why the owner hired him. I guess we will see. But unless Deshaun Watson comes back to play for the Texans, it will be another long year for them.
I think he got hired because he agreed to have Josh McCown as his OC who will take over as the HC in a year or two.
 
To your point, equality of outcome is a 100% socialistic concept while equality of opportunity is a 100% capitalistic necessity. Problem is, capitalism isn’t fair, and it doesn’t either PROMISE or DELIVER economic equality.

In fact, it’s BASED ON unequal-outcome differentials where one person’s ADVANTAGE invariably comes at the price of another’s DISADVANTAGE. Just look at the history of MERCANTILISM.

Acquire for cheap and sell at as high a markup as the market will bear. ALSO KNOWN AS TRADE.

When ENERGY WAS CHEAP and we were REINDUSTRIALIZING THE WORLD after WWII, the notion arose in this country that we could have CAPITALISM and PERMANENT OVERALL PROSPERITY at the same time.

And for a time, we could. Because one barrel of oil was – and still is – equal to 8 years of one man working 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Unfortunately, hydrocarbon EXTRACTION COSTS are now much higher. So, the inherent contradiction between CAPITALISM AND EQUALITY, which had receded, is now BACK ON THE TABLE.

The people today most UNEQUAL are the VARIOUS MINORITIES. But just because the LINGUA FRANCA of the insurgency they’ve mounted (yes, strong words and usually reserved for groups on the Right) is SOCIAL JUSTICE, don’t confuse the FIELD OF BATTLE for the NATURE OF THE CONFLICT ITSELF.

What’s actually taking place is a CLASSIC POWER STRUGGLE. In my world – where trade, negotiating and security are paramount – who one lines up with once the gloves fully come off generally depends on who one thinks will ultimately WIN.

Because any abuses now practiced by those in power will be MIRRORED by any competing groups that ATTAIN POWER IN THE FUTURE. We're all human in THAT WAY, too. That’s why it’s not only essential to CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES but also to CHOOSE YOUR LOYALTIES with the UTMOST CARE.

The point is TO SURVIVE.


Here I had you begged as a capitalist. So you’re a socialist?
 
I think he got hired because he agreed to have Josh McCown as his OC who will take over as the HC in a year or two.

Yes, I have read that too. From what I have read, Smith sees this as his last job, and plans to retire after that. He is a Texas native, so this probably plays out pretty well for him.
 
He's been terrible for over 10 years. No way should he get an nfl job.

Got fired in 5 seasons at Illinois. Was awful

2 seasons at Tampa were awful. Got canned.

He was also the DC of the Texans this year. His defense ranked 31st in ppg out of 32 teams

I have no idea how this guy got hired. One of the worst I've seen
You must have exceedingly high standards if Smith is one of the "worst" hires you have seen. Not every coaching candidate is Vince Lombardi, Bill Belichick, Nick Saban or Knute Rockne. Before the Patriots hired him, Belichick was 36-44 with Cleveland and had only 1 winning season. What would you have said when the Patriots hired him? That Belichick sucked and the Patriots were idiots? Smith was 84-66 with the Bears, including 79-55 in his last 8 seasons. A Super Bowl appearance and 3-3 in the NFL playoffs. NFL Coach of the Year. Hardly sounds like "awful" stuff to me. You only want to cherry pick numbers at the tail end of his career, when Smith got hired to coach some very bad teams, but that is hardly a fair measure of the man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sluggo69
Here I had you begged as a capitalist. So you’re a socialist?
I'm DEFINITELY a CAPITALIST. But I'm a CENTRIST politically. I GET the SOCIALIST ARGUMENT, but I see it as UTOPIAN and therefore unworkable. Socialism STAGNATES society while capitalism CONSUMES ALL IN ITS PATH, including ITSELF.

But it's better to live your way to death through consumption rather than to STAGNATE.

IT'S A BETTER QUALITY EXPERIENCE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IrishBeer
Agree. I truly think the "right wing" side of the coin is safer for a variety of reasons right now. I say "right wing" because today's right wing is actually pretty damn moderate. By right wing, I do not mean the crazy very very small racist minority that support Trump. A better word would be moderate Republican. It is far more in the corner of status quo, which while not perfect, pumps the breaks on a lot of the radicalism and absolute ridiculousness that a weak and spoiled culture is finding itself concerned with. I think the smart folks are the one's that take pause and say, hold on a minute, perhaps hard work should still be rewarded, men shouldn't be smashing women's swimming records, and morality still has a place. Perhaps there is a dangerous end to "progress". History has proven that most progress is good. Thank God for MLK, JFK, LBJ, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act. Thank God we don't live in a nation like that. Thank God for a lot of progress. However, when does progress eventually tip into the "too much of a good thing" category? What more is in the bag? Will dogs have citizenship in 20 years? Will MD's get paid the same as fast food workers? Will white people need to experience slavery? IDK. The liberal end is the far more radical and its far left goals seem far less democratic or capitalist these days than it used to. History has produced many evils on both sides of the spectrum (Hitler vs Stalin vs Mao), but I think the liberal slant in the country, even amongst conservatives (most Republicans would have been Democrats based on their beliefs 10 years ago), makes the Republican party fairly moderate (with the exception of Trump, who likes to ignite division). While I am not scared of Trump, I can see why some would be. I'm not a fan of really anyone politically, but far left agenda is truly scary and far more extreme in America than it ever has been. I think anything that threatens freedom of speech, religion, press, privacy, choice and a variety of other basic inalienable rights, while at the same time opposes morality, threatens tyranny, denies science and biology, silences critics, and aims squarely for complete equity of outcome is downright un-American and scares the literal hell out of me. From that angle, the true far left agenda, (the one most arm-chair democrats don't see or accept as slowly creeping into their lives like a serpent, while they possibly unknowingly fully support these idiotic ideas and leaders that want to squeeze every ounce of control by any means possible), scares the piss out of me.
Well stated, and you raise many good points, many of which I GET.

I’m a CENTRIST. I don’t see the political axis so much as a horizontal LEFT vs. Right phenomenon as a vertical Haves vs. Have-Nots one. Problem is, since the Left supports UNDERDOGS and the Right lines up with POWER, the more basic issue of HOW, WHY AND TO WHOM THE SYSTEM METES OUT REWARDS remains unaddressed.

But then, that's how HIERARCHIAL ELITES like it, and all human societies, regardless of what THEY CALL THEMSELVES, are HIERARCHIES.

The 60’s fractured this country, even as our POST-WWII ECONOMIC BOOM peaked in 1968. That year also marked the end of our CONVENTIONAL-FORCE GEOPOLTICAL DOMINANCE. After TET, it was clear we would never deploy the necessary resources to WAGE LAND WAR SUCCESSFULLY IN ASIA.

I emerged from the 60’s as socially liberal but fiscally conservative. As my fiscal conservatism STRENGTHENED in the 80’s and 90’s, my social liberalism EBBED.

For me, traditional liberalism disappeared in the mid-90’s as both POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and MULTICULTURALISM gained traction. I thought they were both BAD IDEAS as well as an attack on the EXISTING POWER STRUCTURE, with which by that time, I identified – TEAM REALPOLITIK.

The difference I see between the RIGHT and the LEFT today is that the RIGHT will argue tirelessly while the LEFT will at the first opportunity seek to UNDERMINE or DISQUALIFY the RIGHT’s position on MORAL GROUNDS. For some reason, the LEFT believes that it has cornered THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. It hasn’t.

Since I don’t favor either ideology, I’M AN ISSUES SPECIFIC VOTER. Sometimes, I lean Left of Center; sometimes, Right of Center. I don’t favor either sides’ extremists either. ANTIFA is as antithetical to me as are the OATH KEEPERS. Extremism is extremism whereas POLICY MAKING TAKES PLACE AT THE CENTER.

As the illegitimate spawn of MONTESQUIEU and the BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY – and I’m only half-joking – the US started out as a TRADING COMPANY. A sovereign entity – A REPUBLIC – invented to MAKE MONEY.

As the country’s prosperity grew, so did the rights of its CITIZENS. Remove that prosperity by only a fraction, and things begin to change materially. And by now, we’ve seen MORE THAN JUST FRACTIONAL CHANGE.

If we’re going to GET BACK OUR MOJO, we’d better start RELEARNING HOW TO COMPROMISE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IrishBeer
You must have exceedingly high standards if Smith is one of the "worst" hires you have seen. Not every coaching candidate is Vince Lombardi, Bill Belichick, Nick Saban or Knute Rockne. Before the Patriots hired him, Belichick was 36-44 with Cleveland and had only 1 winning season. What would you have said when the Patriots hired him? That Belichick sucked and the Patriots were idiots? Smith was 84-66 with the Bears, including 79-55 in his last 8 seasons. A Super Bowl appearance and 3-3 in the NFL playoffs. NFL Coach of the Year. Hardly sounds like "awful" stuff to me. You only want to cherry pick numbers at the tail end of his career, when Smith got hired to coach some very bad teams, but that is hardly a fair measure of the man.
10 plus years of poor coaching. And he got an NFL head coach job. Hes been awful. You keep bringing up what hes done in the 2000s. That was over a decade ago. Hes been awful.

This is an embarrassing hire. One of the worst I've seen.

31st ranked defense last year and he gets the head coaching job. Unreal

Even if I had low standards, he wouldnt clear that bar. This is a joke
 
10 plus years of poor coaching. And he got an NFL head coach job. Hes been awful. You keep bringing up what hes done in the 2000s. That was over a decade ago. Hes been awful.

This is an embarrassing hire. One of the worst I've seen.

31st ranked defense last year and he gets the head coaching job. Unreal

Even if I had low standards, he wouldnt clear that bar. This is a joke

And you keep wanting to ignore the man's full past. You seem to be a member of the "But What Have You Done For Me Lately Club"? Certainly Smith's most recent past is relevant to the hiring decision, but you want to dismiss a lifetime of some pretty significant coaching accomplishments before that. I am not willing to do that. I guess we are just coming at it from different perspectives; being an old guy, maybe I just tend to take the long view on more things. A difference of opinion is OK, that is what these message boards are all about, I guess.

But when it is your time to stand before the Pearly Gates, I hope for your sake that your last 10 years have been pretty spectacular.
 
And you keep wanting to ignore the man's full past. You seem to be a member of the "But What Have You Done For Me Lately Club"? Certainly Smith's most recent past is relevant to the hiring decision, but you want to dismiss a lifetime of some pretty significant coaching accomplishments before that. I am not willing to do that. I guess we are just coming at it from different perspectives; being an old guy, maybe I just tend to take the long view on more things. A difference of opinion is OK, that is what these message boards are all about, I guess.

But when it is your time to stand before the Pearly Gates, I hope for your sake that your last 10 years have been pretty spectacular.
The game has changed a lot in the past 10 years. You have to update your resume. There were a lot of good coaches in the 2000s that I wouldn't hire now. You can't have a bad 10 year stretch and get one of the most coveted jobs. Only 32 of them.
 
And you keep wanting to ignore the man's full past. You seem to be a member of the "But What Have You Done For Me Lately Club"? Certainly Smith's most recent past is relevant to the hiring decision, but you want to dismiss a lifetime of some pretty significant coaching accomplishments before that. I am not willing to do that. I guess we are just coming at it from different perspectives; being an old guy, maybe I just tend to take the long view on more things. A difference of opinion is OK, that is what these message boards are all about, I guess.

But when it is your time to stand before the Pearly Gates, I hope for your sake that your last 10 years have been pretty spectacular.
While one’s body of work must be considered, when competing contemporaraneously, one has to weight trend, trend in the most recent time frame.
 
The game has changed a lot in the past 10 years. You have to update your resume. There were a lot of good coaches in the 2000s that I wouldn't hire now. You can't have a bad 10 year stretch and get one of the most coveted jobs. Only 32 of them.

I can certainly understand that point of view. It was the "awful," "embarrassment," "worst hire I have ever seen," and other pejoratives thrown out there that I found overly harsh.
 
I can certainly understand that point of view. It was the "awful," "embarrassment," "worst hire I have ever seen," and other pejoratives thrown out there that I found overly harsh.
That's how I feel. I thought he looked overmatched against college coaches. Then he stunk it up coaching defense. How can he have been worse the past 8 years? He's been about as bad as you can possibly be for about 9 years straight
 
“the US started out as a TRADING COMPANY. A sovereign entity – A REPUBLIC – invented to MAKE MONEY.”

made up horseshit
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT