Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
poefolks

Ozzie Stepping Down Next Season

51 posts in this topic

30 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

I thought the Rooney Rule only applied to HCs? 

Head coaches and general managers. There's some kind of exception for an AGM who was named as the heir apparent, as DeCosta was years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

Head coaches and general managers. There's some kind of exception for an AGM who was named as the heir apparent, as DeCosta was years ago.

Gotcha. I didn't realize that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RestonRaven said:

Disagree.  The point of the Rooney rule is to create a diverse slate of candidates during the recruiting process that affirmatively injects persons of color into the head coaching pool of candidates.  That is ultimately how coaches like Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith eventually got head coaching positions. Because they were finally included in the candidate pool for several jobs, they were ultimately selected for head coaching positions.  It was a very proud watershed moment for the African American community, and a moment of immense gratification, when they faced off in the Super Bowl.

It is that opportunity for even a "token" interview that was denied to minority coaches as a homogeneous group of all older white men (until Shad Khan of the Jaguars) for many years excluded minority coaches from the interview process and entering "the pool. " Only the late Al Davis - who hired Tom Flores (Hispanic) and Art Shell (Black) - had hired minorities for head coaching positions prior to the implementation of the Rooney rule.  It was this proactive requirement to take an affirmative action to have a mandatory diverse slate of candidates into the hiring process that forced owners to cast their hiring nets wider -- rather than recycling coaches from the same pool of folks like Jerry Glanville, Sam Wyche, Buddy Ryan and Rich Kotite - which happened frequently before implementation of the Rooney Rule. 

Even if you don't get the job -- you gain the experience of going through the recruiting process, honing your leadership and strategy vision and your overall interview skills. You have an opportunity to make an impression on a GM or other front office personnel who will eventually move on to other positions in a highly transient NFL.  I can certainly say I benefited from each job interviews where I didn't land the position I applied for, and it made me better when I went through the loop again for another job or a leadership position. I have seen many people land jobs because they were also able to expand their "network" through the interview process.  For example, I can't count how many times I have watched a person move to a managerial position at another competitive company, and recruit a talented person that made a positive impression during an interview in our organization via highlighting their accomplishments, vision and soft skillsets - even if they didn't ultimately get the position. I coach/mentor all of the candidates in my current organization to apply for positions, even if I think they might be a longshot, because they will benefit from the experience and make them better candidates the next time around. That represents a true people investment and not lip service.  Prior to the Rooney rule - minority candidates were being denied even the "at-bat" opportunity as repeatedly validated by the candidate lists NFL teams were interviewing.  Despite better overall coordinator success than many of their peers - guys like Tony and Lovie were not even on the interview list for several years.  Optically, it was a really bad look for the NFL given that 70% of the players on the field were black - and many of the white NFL owners quite frankly needed a catalyst requirement.    I hope the NFL gets to the point of not needing a "Rooney Rule,"  but I think it is still of significant value at this juncture.  Peace.

Those are good points, and I see it's value from that perspective. 

However, not to nitpick, but Dungy had already had a head coaching job prior to the Rooney rule, as Tampa Bay's head coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rooney Rule should not be necessary in this era. People who still make judgements based on skin color are throwbacks. Make judgements based on competence in whatever set of skills you need to fill a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

The Rooney Rule should not be necessary in this era. People who still make judgements based on skin color are throwbacks. Make judgements based on competence in whatever set of skills you need to fill a job.

I would agree with that except for that fact that at one point the same white coaches were getting fired from one job and hired by another team.  The white coach who went 4-12 and got fired by team A would get hired by Team B despite the 4-12 record that got him fired. I'll admit that now the rule isn't as relevant, but the reality is a lot of black head coaches that have been hired in the last 10 years wouldn't have even gotten an interview before the rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

I would agree with that except for that fact that at one point the same white coaches were getting fired from one job and hired by another team.  The white coach who went 4-12 and got fired by team A would get hired by Team B despite the 4-12 record that got him fired. I'll admit that now the rule isn't as relevant, but the reality is a lot of black head coaches that have been hired in the last 10 years wouldn't have even gotten an interview before the rule. 

I personally don't agree with the whole premise, but I have read where black coaches stated that if nothing else, it helped better prepare them for the interview process, even if they frankly admitted they didn't expect to get the job. I guess there's something to be said for that. 

Edited by mdrunning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmore_ken said:

I would agree with that except for that fact that at one point the same white coaches were getting fired from one job and hired by another team.  The white coach who went 4-12 and got fired by team A would get hired by Team B despite the 4-12 record that got him fired. I'll admit that now the rule isn't as relevant, but the reality is a lot of black head coaches that have been hired in the last 10 years wouldn't have even gotten an interview before the rule. 

Note that I said "should not be necessary" not "isn't necessary". There's still a lot of bias and racism out there. My point was that those who practice it deserve to fail. They are denying themselves a significant potential talent pool, and that's stupid as hell. Unfortunately, while some people come to this realization through logic, others have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

Edited by Evil Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alienrace said:

Those are good points, and I see it's value from that perspective. 

However, not to nitpick, but Dungy had already had a head coaching job prior to the Rooney rule, as Tampa Bay's head coach.

Thanks for clarification. I thought his Tampa hire occurred post-Rooney rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RestonRaven said:

Disagree.  The point of the Rooney rule is to create a diverse slate of candidates during the recruiting process that affirmatively injects persons of color into the head coaching pool of candidates.  That is ultimately how coaches like Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith eventually got head coaching positions. Because they were finally included in the candidate pool for several jobs, they were ultimately selected for head coaching positions.  It was a very proud watershed moment for the African American community, and a moment of immense gratification, when they faced off in the Super Bowl.

It is that opportunity for even a "token" interview that was denied to minority coaches as a homogeneous group of all older white men (until Shad Khan of the Jaguars) for many years excluded minority coaches from the interview process and entering "the pool. " Only the late Al Davis - who hired Tom Flores (Hispanic) and Art Shell (Black) - had hired minorities for head coaching positions prior to the implementation of the Rooney rule.  It was this proactive requirement to take an affirmative action to have a mandatory diverse slate of candidates into the hiring process that forced owners to cast their hiring nets wider -- rather than recycling coaches from the same pool of folks like Jerry Glanville, Sam Wyche, Buddy Ryan and Rich Kotite - which happened frequently before implementation of the Rooney Rule. 

Even if you don't get the job -- you gain the experience of going through the recruiting process, honing your leadership and strategy vision and your overall interview skills. You have an opportunity to make an impression on a GM or other front office personnel who will eventually move on to other positions in a highly transient NFL.  I can certainly say I benefited from each job interviews where I didn't land the position I applied for, and it made me better when I went through the loop again for another job or a leadership position. I have seen many people land jobs because they were also able to expand their "network" through the interview process.  For example, I can't count how many times I have watched a person move to a managerial position at another competitive company, and recruit a talented person that made a positive impression during an interview in our organization via highlighting their accomplishments, vision and soft skillsets - even if they didn't ultimately get the position. I coach/mentor all of the candidates in my current organization to apply for positions, even if I think they might be a longshot, because they will benefit from the experience and make them better candidates the next time around. That represents a true people investment and not lip service.  Prior to the Rooney rule - minority candidates were being denied even the "at-bat" opportunity as repeatedly validated by the candidate lists NFL teams were interviewing.  Despite better overall coordinator success than many of their peers - guys like Tony and Lovie were not even on the interview list for several years.  Optically, it was a really bad look for the NFL given that 70% of the players on the field were black - and many of the white NFL owners quite frankly needed a catalyst requirement.    I hope the NFL gets to the point of not needing a "Rooney Rule,"  but I think it is still of significant value at this juncture.  Peace.

Nice/informative post- i had alien's perspective before but you changed my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2018 at 3:56 PM, weird-O said:

If you go back several years, I would agree with you. But not the last...what...3 drafts? The results have been pretty mediocre. Generally ignoring your offense, and choosing poorly when you do draft an offensive player, is going to keep this team in the mid-tier range. Meaning, they'll be in the playoff hunt, and may get there sometimes. But they'll probably be eliminated early. In the meantime, they've been living right up against their salary cap, which limits what they can do in the FA market. 2012 was already a long time ago, in football years.    

2012 is a long time ago? How often do you think the Ravens should be winning Super Bowls? Once every two or three years? You are taking a very small sample and making it look like Ozzie is a failure. Before you reply back with “where did I say he was a failure?” We can agree you did not call him a failure but it sort of sounds like you think he isn’t any good. If you could, which GM would you trade Ozzie for if you could trade him for anybody? 

The problem with the drafts the last few years have been the scouting department. Other teams have cleaned us out of all our scouts and they were replaced with scouts nowhere near as good. That’s what happens when you have the best drafts year in and year out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, RavingManiac said:

2012 is a long time ago? How often do you think the Ravens should be winning Super Bowls? Once every two or three years? You are taking a very small sample and making it look like Ozzie is a failure. Before you reply back with “where did I say he was a failure?” We can agree you did not call him a failure but it sort of sounds like you think he isn’t any good. If you could, which GM would you trade Ozzie for if you could trade him for anybody? 

The problem with the drafts the last few years have been the scouting department. Other teams have cleaned us out of all our scouts and they were replaced with scouts nowhere near as good. That’s what happens when you have the best drafts year in and year out. 

How long are you going to hang your hat on that Super Bowl? Five years is a lifetime in the NFL.

The bad drafts are what have the Ravens in the state they're currently in. When you miss on draft picks, then only other alternative is to go out and pay for it. That places even greater upward pressure on a team's cap. If Brashad Perriman had produced, the Ravens wouldn't have had to sign Jeremy Maclin. If Matt Elam and Terrance Brooks had provided value in the defensive backfield, there wouldn't have been a need to sign both Eric Weddle and Tony Jefferson.

Those three free agents combined to count over $24 million against the Ravens' cap. If they had worked out, maybe the Ravens could have afforded to keep both Rick Wagner and Kelechi Osemele. That's the price of whiffing in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mdrunning said:

How long are you going to hang your hat on that Super Bowl? Five years is a lifetime in the NFL.

The bad drafts are what have the Ravens in the state they're currently in. When you miss on draft picks, then only other alternative is to go out and pay for it. That places even greater upward pressure on a team's cap. If Brashad Perriman had produced, the Ravens wouldn't have had to sign Jeremy Maclin. If Matt Elam and Terrance Brooks had provided value in the defensive backfield, there wouldn't have been a need to sign both Eric Weddle and Tony Jefferson.

Those three free agents combined to count over $24 million against the Ravens' cap. If they had worked out, maybe the Ravens could have afforded to keep both Rick Wagner and Kelechi Osemele. That's the price of whiffing in the draft.

How often do you think a team should win  a Super Bowl before everybody should be fired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

2012 is a long time ago? How often do you think the Ravens should be winning Super Bowls? Once every two or three years? You are taking a very small sample and making it look like Ozzie is a failure. Before you reply back with “where did I say he was a failure?” We can agree you did not call him a failure but it sort of sounds like you think he isn’t any good. If you could, which GM would you trade Ozzie for if you could trade him for anybody? 

The problem with the drafts the last few years have been the scouting department. Other teams have cleaned us out of all our scouts and they were replaced with scouts nowhere near as good. That’s what happens when you have the best drafts year in and year out. 

I don't expect any team to win the SB every couple of years. And I don't expect the Ravens to be SB contenders every year, forever. 

Regarding your scouting comment, would you mind elaborating on that? Have they left, because they were offered promotions by other teams? That sort of thing? I'll hold off on this particular topic, until I hear back from you. Because I don't know those details, so I couldn't begin to discuss it intelligently. 

I'll remind the board, that I'm not the most astute football fan. I never played the sport, and I don't have a full grasp on the intricacies of the business side of constructing a team. When it comes to the Ravens, I'm more of a listener, than a talker. But in listening, here's a constant criticism that I've heard about Ozzie.

Everything I post from here on out, are the comments I've repeatedly heard. So if you disagree, just remember that it isn't me talking.

He's an old school GM who believe in defense first, last and always. His philosophy is to build the strongest D you can, and count of the D to keep the other guys off the board. That way, you don't need a great offense. The Ravens first SB championship defends that philosophy. But 17 years later, the game has changed. It's an offensive game. The quality of offensive play makers has changed, dramatically. And Ozzie's old school attitude is no longer in step with today's game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

How often do you think a team should win  a Super Bowl before everybody should be fired?

I never said anyone should be fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, weird-O said:

 

Everything I post from here on out, are the comments I've repeatedly heard. So if you disagree, just remember that it isn't me talking.

He's an old school GM who believe in defense first, last and always. His philosophy is to build the strongest D you can, and count of the D to keep the other guys off the board. That way, you don't need a great offense. The Ravens first SB championship defends that philosophy. But 17 years later, the game has changed. It's an offensive game. The quality of offensive play makers has changed, dramatically. And Ozzie's old school attitude is no longer in step with today's game. 

That pretty much sums it up, and IMO it is somewhat deserved criticism. However, I find it interesting that the owner apparently also believes defense comes first. On Friday, he said in part:   “New Orleans has a really exciting brand of football that went 7-9 three years in a row,” he said. “So it didn’t help them. Exciting doesn’t necessarily mean wins. We have been a defense-dominant team since I’ve been and since long before I bought the team, and we want to keep that because we don’t want people not to be scared of us. So we’re going to keep working on that, to keep scaring people.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bs-sp-empty-seats-worry-ravens-steve-bisciotti-20180202-story.html

 

On your question about the scouting department, Biscotti said this: "Bisciotti acknowledged Friday that the early-round draft misses have been “costly,” forcing the team to spend money instead in free agency and leading to limited salary cap flexibility. Bisciotti said the team has erred in not hiring experienced scouts to replace some of its top evaluators who have left for promotions elsewhere, and he vowed to put a greater premium on veteran talent evaluators. He also attributed some of the team’s drafting problems in early rounds to “over-analysis,” and getting too many opinions on the perceived top players."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bs-sp-newsome-gm-decosta-20180202-story.html

 

The last quote also supports points made by both Mdrunning and RavenManiac BTW.  

Edited by Struds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Struds said:

That pretty much sums it up, and IMO it is somewhat deserved criticism. However, I find it interesting that the owner apparently also believes defense comes first. On Friday, he said in part:   “New Orleans has a really exciting brand of football that went 7-9 three years in a row,” he said. “So it didn’t help them. Exciting doesn’t necessarily mean wins. We have been a defense-dominant team since I’ve been and since long before I bought the team, and we want to keep that because we don’t want people not to be scared of us. So we’re going to keep working on that, to keep scaring people.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bs-sp-empty-seats-worry-ravens-steve-bisciotti-20180202-story.html

 

On your question about the scouting department, Biscotti said this: "Bisciotti acknowledged Friday that the early-round draft misses have been “costly,” forcing the team to spend money instead in free agency and leading to limited salary cap flexibility. Bisciotti said the team has erred in not hiring experienced scouts to replace some of its top evaluators who have left for promotions elsewhere, and he vowed to put a greater premium on veteran talent evaluators. He also attributed some of the team’s drafting problems in early rounds to “over-analysis,” and getting too many opinions on the perceived top players."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bs-sp-newsome-gm-decosta-20180202-story.html

 

The last quote also supports points made by both Mdrunning and RavenManiac BTW.  

Awesome, thanks for sharing that info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different note,

I wonder if DaCosta will be calling the shots in this year's draft, with Ozzie taking more of a back seat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Ozzie did have a nice run with a pair of SB wins along with playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mikemor1 said:

On a different note,

I wonder if DaCosta will be calling the shots in this year's draft, with Ozzie taking more of a back seat?

I think that was mentioned somewhere along the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 8:04 AM, weird-O said:

I don't expect any team to win the SB every couple of years. And I don't expect the Ravens to be SB contenders every year, forever. 

Regarding your scouting comment, would you mind elaborating on that? Have they left, because they were offered promotions by other teams? That sort of thing? I'll hold off on this particular topic, until I hear back from you. Because I don't know those details, so I couldn't begin to discuss it intelligently. 

I'll remind the board, that I'm not the most astute football fan. I never played the sport, and I don't have a full grasp on the intricacies of the business side of constructing a team. When it comes to the Ravens, I'm more of a listener, than a talker. But in listening, here's a constant criticism that I've heard about Ozzie.

Everything I post from here on out, are the comments I've repeatedly heard. So if you disagree, just remember that it isn't me talking.

He's an old school GM who believe in defense first, last and always. His philosophy is to build the strongest D you can, and count of the D to keep the other guys off the board. That way, you don't need a great offense. The Ravens first SB championship defends that philosophy. But 17 years later, the game has changed. It's an offensive game. The quality of offensive play makers has changed, dramatically. And Ozzie's old school attitude is no longer in step with today's game. 

Were you able to listen to the State of the Ravens press conference by Bisciotti? He had mentioned they made a mistake by letting there scouts go and replacing them with young 25 year olds. I imagine the scouts had left for promotions for other teams. Bisciotti did not say that but I am sure that's what happened. He said they need scouts with more experience. This explains the poor drafting the last couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:41 AM, mdrunning said:

I never said anyone should be fired.

I don't think I ever said you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Struds said:

That pretty much sums it up, and IMO it is somewhat deserved criticism. However, I find it interesting that the owner apparently also believes defense comes first. On Friday, he said in part:   “New Orleans has a really exciting brand of football that went 7-9 three years in a row,” he said. “So it didn’t help them. Exciting doesn’t necessarily mean wins. We have been a defense-dominant team since I’ve been and since long before I bought the team, and we want to keep that because we don’t want people not to be scared of us. So we’re going to keep working on that, to keep scaring people.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bs-sp-empty-seats-worry-ravens-steve-bisciotti-20180202-story.html

 

On your question about the scouting department, Biscotti said this: "Bisciotti acknowledged Friday that the early-round draft misses have been “costly,” forcing the team to spend money instead in free agency and leading to limited salary cap flexibility. Bisciotti said the team has erred in not hiring experienced scouts to replace some of its top evaluators who have left for promotions elsewhere, and he vowed to put a greater premium on veteran talent evaluators. He also attributed some of the team’s drafting problems in early rounds to “over-analysis,” and getting too many opinions on the perceived top players."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bs-sp-newsome-gm-decosta-20180202-story.html

 

The last quote also supports points made by both Mdrunning and RavenManiac BTW.  

Thank you. I didn't realize you addressed this before I addressed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

Were you able to listen to the State of the Ravens press conference by Bisciotti? He had mentioned they made a mistake by letting there scouts go and replacing them with young 25 year olds. I imagine the scouts had left for promotions for other teams. Bisciotti did not say that but I am sure that's what happened. He said they need scouts with more experience. This explains the poor drafting the last couple of years.

Now if only he could explain about scouting to the other Baltimore owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

Were you able to listen to the State of the Ravens press conference by Bisciotti? He had mentioned they made a mistake by letting there scouts go and replacing them with young 25 year olds. I imagine the scouts had left for promotions for other teams. Bisciotti did not say that but I am sure that's what happened. He said they need scouts with more experience. This explains the poor drafting the last couple of years.

I didn't hear all of the press conference, but as luck would have it, I heard a conversation on the radio. They were saying the Ravens lost some good scouts to promotions with other clubs. And they repeated what Bisciotti said about not choosing quality replacements. Apparently he also said that will be remedied, because he intends to dedicate the necessary funds to get a team of quality people to replace those who weren't doing a good enough job. That all sounds good. And I've never doubted Steve's commitment to maintaining a competitive team, so I believe him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

Now if only he could explain about scouting to the other Baltimore owner.

You can say that again -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0