Coaching Carousel 2025

[Grim]

I’d love to bring in Pierce to our staff if there’s an opening. He’s one of those guys who could do well with a change of scenery, imho. Maybe it helps us get Maxx

 

[Baltimorican]

Because of DEI? Not all. There were more qualified black coaches on that staff that should have gotten the interim job over Pierce. One of which is getting interviews now.
Lets go through the list. At the time of Pierce's hiring:

Antonio Pierce: 2 years as a college DC, and 1.5 years as an NFL linebacker coach.

Patrick Graham: 4.5 years as an NFL DC
Rob Ryan: 13 years as an NFL DC (including five years under Mark's daddy)
Chris Ash: 4 years as a HC of a College program (Rutgers), 2.5 years as an NFL secondary coach
Scott Turner: 3 years as an NFL OC, 8.5 years as an NFL positional coach (mostly with QBs)

And those are just the guys I've heard of. They've got other positional coaches who have more tenure and have been in positions better suited to be the HC of a pro team than Pierce did.

YOU called him a DEI hire. But the most obvious choice was also black? Rob Ryan would have been an awful pick. The other 2 were Gruden's protegees. DEI hire is a very serious charge. Interim coaches are usually picked exactly as Pierce was, as in, who can I put up that the team and remaining staff won't fully revolt over. He actually did well enough to get another year which is uncommon.

If you're going to throw such a charged accusation around you better have an actual argument.

 

[Simba]

YOU called him a DEI hire. But the most obvious choice was also black? Rob Ryan would have been an awful pick. The other 2 were Gruden's protegees. DEI hire is a very serious charge. Interim coaches are usually picked exactly as Pierce was, as in, who can I put up that the team and remaining staff won't fully revolt over. He actually did well enough to get another year which is uncommon.

If you're going to throw such a charged accusation around you better have an actual argument.

And his argument also ignores that he was selected over the other candidates because the team was so undisciplined under McDaniels that they wanted a guy that would take no shit at the helm, and Pierce was the choice for that reason.

And also ignores that he got the job because the players fought tooth and nail for him. Hard to say with any certainty, but I'd be surprised if he had gotten the job had the players not done that.

That brings up other arguments if we was actually the right choice, but that's not the argument here.

 

[rossihunter2]

And his argument also ignores that he was selected over the other candidates because the team was so undisciplined under McDaniels that they wanted a guy that would take no shit at the helm, and Pierce was the choice for that reason.

And also ignores that he got the job because the players fought tooth and nail for him. Hard to say with any certainty, but I'd be surprised if he had gotten the job had the players not done that.

That brings up other arguments if we was actually the right choice, but that's not the argument here.

maxx crosby was threatening to request a trade or sit out if pierce wasn't the choice

 

[rmcjacket23]

you yourself just acknowledged that there were other (more) qualified minority candidates so it inherently can't be a DEI hire in that sense lol

also, sidenote... this warping of the idea of DEI being a bad thing is bizarre, as if it means candidates will be inherently less qualified or prepared than their non-minority counterparts when in actuality, when it just means giving opportunities to qualified candidates who previously wouldn't be given the opportunities due to lack of access to networking opportunities and hiring biases

and... in many cases these are candidates who've had to work harder to get where they are because of those existing biases preventing them from getting opportunities that their peers get

the people most obsessed with "DEI hires", are using the word DEI as a derogatory stand-in for any minority person getting any high-level or desirable job... it's just the next in a long line of co-opted phrases that ultimately are just racist dogwhistles for people wanting to undermine the positions, qualifications and abilities of minority people.

DEI used to be affirmative action, political correctness, critical race theory, wokeness, snowflake among many other phrases... they are all rhetorical swiss army knives used by racists for cover

Yeah this a very "theoretical" view on what DEI would ideally be, except nothing here is how its actually be executed in the real world:

DEI, in its current form, and how its being used globally (and especially in the US) is 90% about optics and 10% about output. In practice, DEI is used to get less qualified minorities jobs. That's what you're seeing in the World, and its the reason why its seeing massive rollbacks.

The notion of "substantially less opportunities" hasn't been a problem for at least the last decade or so. Most major Universities, both in the US and abroad, literally have quotas of minority applicants they take and enroll, and its dramatically higher than its ever been in history. Acceptance into schools at a higher level leads to dramatically higher networking opportunities and job applications, since large Companies favor hiring for specific schools. Always have and always will.

IF DEI were effective in practice, Antonio Pierce never, in a billion years, gets hired for that job. His hiring didn't occur due to lack of opportunities for jobs. He got a network TV job almost straight out of football. He's had direct access to countless high profile individuals for a long, long, long time now. He got that job, over somebody like Graham (who would be a DEI hire if DEI existed the way it theoretically should), because Pierce "optically" looks better. That's it. Better face recognition. Household name among people who followed football. Qualifications, in no universe, were a factor.

There are two things we agree on though:
1. I'm 100% using it as a rhetorical phrase to mock actual racists, which are the people who have spent time implementing a failed process like this one. That's being done intentionally and with malice.
2. DEI isn't for qualified people. It's for unqualified people. Qualified minorities have been thriving for years. They're starting businesses and foundations, leading tons of the Fortune 500 companies, and they're providing scholarships and admission credentials to minorities so that they have access to the same networks they did.

 

[rmcjacket23]

maxx crosby was threatening to request a trade or sit out if pierce wasn't the choice

And Davante Adams couldn't stand him...

 

[rmcjacket23]

YOU called him a DEI hire. But the most obvious choice was also black? Rob Ryan would have been an awful pick. The other 2 were Gruden's protegees. DEI hire is a very serious charge. Interim coaches are usually picked exactly as Pierce was, as in, who can I put up that the team and remaining staff won't fully revolt over. He actually did well enough to get another year which is uncommon.

If you're going to throw such a charged accusation around you better have an actual argument.

Yes, because DEI isn't about getting qualified minorities opportunities. It's about getting unqualified minorities opportunities.

 

[rmcjacket23]

And his argument also ignores that he was selected over the other candidates because the team was so undisciplined under McDaniels that they wanted a guy that would take no shit at the helm, and Pierce was the choice for that reason.

And also ignores that he got the job because the players fought tooth and nail for him. Hard to say with any certainty, but I'd be surprised if he had gotten the job had the players not done that.

That brings up other arguments if we was actually the right choice, but that's not the argument here.

OK so a) if Pierce was that choice, then it was a bad choice (it was), because the Raiders weren't disciplined under Pierce, and he, on at least one occasion, publicly called out his locker room for lack of effort and b) I'd find it hard to sell the idea that somehow the team wouldn't have fought hard for Graham, especially when you consider he was kept on after McDaniels left, despite not being "Pierce's guy".

 

[BoredMarine13]

Yeah this a very "theoretical" view on what DEI would ideally be, except nothing here is how its actually be executed in the real world:

DEI, in its current form, and how its being used globally (and especially in the US) is 90% about optics and 10% about output. In practice, DEI is used to get less qualified minorities jobs. That's what you're seeing in the World, and its the reason why its seeing massive rollbacks.

The notion of "substantially less opportunities" hasn't been a problem for at least the last decade or so. Most major Universities, both in the US and abroad, literally have quotas of minority applicants they take and enroll, and its dramatically higher than its ever been in history. Acceptance into schools at a higher level leads to dramatically higher networking opportunities and job applications, since large Companies favor hiring for specific schools. Always have and always will.

IF DEI were effective in practice, Antonio Pierce never, in a billion years, gets hired for that job. His hiring didn't occur due to lack of opportunities for jobs. He got a network TV job almost straight out of football. He's had direct access to countless high profile individuals for a long, long, long time now. He got that job, over somebody like Graham (who would be a DEI hire if DEI existed the way it theoretically should), because Pierce "optically" looks better. That's it. Better face recognition. Household name among people who followed football. Qualifications, in no universe, were a factor.

There are two things we agree on though:
1. I'm 100% using it as a rhetorical phrase to mock actual racists, which are the people who have spent time implementing a failed process like this one. That's being done intentionally and with malice.
2. DEI isn't for qualified people. It's for unqualified people. Qualified minorities have been thriving for years. They're starting businesses and foundations, leading tons of the Fortune 500 companies, and they're providing scholarships and admission credentials to minorities so that they have access to the same networks they did.

My wife was apart of the Brown law suit and got a settlement. Asian Americans, specially ones of South Asian decent, were heavily discriminated against by the Ivys.

It’s funny to me people blindly support these programs in an attempt to be anti racist while the programs are actively racist. I like the idea of DEI, atleast getting people to the starting line that wouldn’t normally be there. But it’s turned into this awful situation putting unqualified people ahead others based on race, gender, and sexual preference. See it all the time in the Marines as well. Only saving grace for us is only they never last.

 

[rmcjacket23]

My wife was apart of the Brown law suit and got a settlement. Asian Americans, specially ones of South Asian decent, were heavily discriminated against by the Ivys.

It’s funny to me people blindly support these programs in an attempt to be anti racist while the programs are actively racist. I like the idea of DEI, atleast getting people to the starting line that wouldn’t normally be there. But it’s turned into this awful situation putting unqualified people ahead others based on race, gender, and sexual preference. See it all the time in the Marines as well. Only saving grace for us is only they never last.

Best part for me is how many Corporations are rolling back their policies, because the shareholders woke up one day and were like "o fuck, this whole thing just costs the company $. It doesn't make anything actually better, its just spending $ so you look better to people who aren't writing checks". And then boom, people stopped caring.

 

[RavensMania]

Brady has been in touch with BB to bring him to the Raiders. His contract requires a 10m buyout which is nothing for these owners, even Mark Davis.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Brady has been in touch with BB to bring him to the Raiders. His contract requires a 10m buyout which is nothing for these owners, even Mark Davis.

I will be both shocked and not shocked at the same time. And funny thing is the "winners" in that deal is UNC.

 

[rmcjacket23]

In the NFl ALMOST NOBODY is hiring the tenured old fart retreads, EVERYBODY is looking for the hot young candidate before they blow up. Just on the Ravens , Harbaugh and Orr were nowhere close to the "most qualified" guys available. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong but that's what teams are looking for.

You know what, screw logical arguments, just go suck Rogan's nads Mr Alpha, you are clearly way off the deep end.

lol this is just totally wrong.
For starters, old retreads are getting hired left and right. Look at the last few hiring cycles. Old, retread HCs getting hired plenty. Old, retread coordinators getting hired plenty. It's a bigger complaint by the media that diversity hiring.

Zach Orr isn't a HC. He's a coordinator. Coordinators are much easier to dispatch, as many teams routinely turn over OCs and DCs annually for a variety of reasons. Ravens included.

And Harbaugh wasn't a "young" guy even when he was hired, and he had over a decade of Coordinator experience in the league when he was hired. He was just one of the few unicorn ST guys to get hired.

I'd recommend if you want to have a "logical argument", you get one. Start by actually looking at what's happening out there.

 

[rossihunter2]

Yeah this a very "theoretical" view on what DEI would ideally be, except nothing here is how its actually be executed in the real world:

DEI, in its current form, and how its being used globally (and especially in the US) is 90% about optics and 10% about output. In practice, DEI is used to get less qualified minorities jobs. That's what you're seeing in the World, and its the reason why its seeing massive rollbacks.

The notion of "substantially less opportunities" hasn't been a problem for at least the last decade or so. Most major Universities, both in the US and abroad, literally have quotas of minority applicants they take and enroll, and its dramatically higher than its ever been in history. Acceptance into schools at a higher level leads to dramatically higher networking opportunities and job applications, since large Companies favor hiring for specific schools. Always have and always will.

IF DEI were effective in practice, Antonio Pierce never, in a billion years, gets hired for that job. His hiring didn't occur due to lack of opportunities for jobs. He got a network TV job almost straight out of football. He's had direct access to countless high profile individuals for a long, long, long time now. He got that job, over somebody like Graham (who would be a DEI hire if DEI existed the way it theoretically should), because Pierce "optically" looks better. That's it. Better face recognition. Household name among people who followed football. Qualifications, in no universe, were a factor.

There are two things we agree on though:
1. I'm 100% using it as a rhetorical phrase to mock actual racists, which are the people who have spent time implementing a failed process like this one. That's being done intentionally and with malice.
2. DEI isn't for qualified people. It's for unqualified people. Qualified minorities have been thriving for years. They're starting businesses and foundations, leading tons of the Fortune 500 companies, and they're providing scholarships and admission credentials to minorities so that they have access to the same networks they did.

your perception is false, and the fact you believe it differently, again says something about your worldview and the way you see people
DEI is very specifically about qualified people

DEI does not force employers and companies to hire unqualified people, it gives qualified people from different backgrounds more opportunities - no one is hiring people for jobs they are not qualified to do

and DEI initiatives have proven to improve corporate performance

with specific reference to the Antonio Pierce hire, you were the one that brought up DEI - and im not sure why he would have been "optically" the better choice with more name recognition... maybe im missing something on that

 

[rossihunter2]

Yes, because DEI isn't about getting qualified minorities opportunities. It's about getting unqualified minorities opportunities.

DEI is very specifically about qualified people

 

[rossihunter2]

Best part for me is how many Corporations are rolling back their policies, because the shareholders woke up one day and were like "o fuck, this whole thing just costs the company $. It doesn't make anything actually better, its just spending $ so you look better to people who aren't writing checks". And then boom, people stopped caring.

DEI has proven to add value to corporations lol - diverse and inclusive workplaces have outperformed competitors by 35%

 

[rmcjacket23]

your perception is false, and the fact you believe it differently, again says something about your worldview and the way you see people
DEI is very specifically about qualified people

DEI does not force employers and companies to hire unqualified people, it gives qualified people from different backgrounds more opportunities - no one is hiring people for jobs they are not qualified to do

and DEI initiatives have proven to improve corporate performance

with specific reference to the Antonio Pierce hire, you were the one that brought up DEI - and im not sure why he would have been "optically" the better choice with more name recognition... maybe im missing something on that

lol my "perception" is a Corporate reality. The "no one is hiring people for jobs they are not qualified to do" is like a top 5 dumbest fucking shit statement I've seen on this board. And that's really, really, really saying something. Corporations are filled with unqualified people. They get hired all the time. They get fired all the time. It's literally the backbone of Corporate America both in the US and abroad. You put out a resume that is either partially fictitious or totally bogus, which is now not even written by you but by AI, and go to an interview and kiss as much ass as possible to get a job. You get the job, you suck it at, and you get canned within a year. Rinse, repeat. That's been Corporate America for literally decades.

And its exponentially more common in jobs with less skills required. There's literally millions of jobs where the "qualification" process involves questions like "do you have a car that works" and "can you pass a drug test".

As for Pierce, why was he optically the better choice? Well, he was on TV for an extended period of time, both as a player and as an "analyst", and people liked him. That's called optics. If you're going to hire somebody who's less qualified than others, hire somebody that people like and they know. He gets a slightly longer leash to be incompetent than somebody like Matt Eberflus, who it took all of like 2 games for people to realize he was clueless.
It's purely for optics. It's to make everybody feel warm and fuzzy. It's low risk. If he sucks, he cost you a hell of a lot less than somebody more qualified, and everybody just moves on. And he can go back to TV or whatever, where he'll make plenty of $.

 

[rmcjacket23]

DEI has proven to add value to corporations lol - diverse and inclusive workplaces have outperformed competitors by 35%

lol not in the long term. Those studies were from the first few years of DEI initiatives, and ignore the gigantic amount of problems that have been created from it:

Was 2024 the year DEI fell apart? The major companies, universities that ditched the policy this year

‘We’re at the beginning of DEI’s death,’ conservative activist Robby Starbuck predicted.

nypost.com

The fallacy that companies realized is that DEI initiatives, by definition, require discrimination. It's literally impossible to implement without some racial, gender, or age demographic being discriminated against at some level. Once you start passing legislation that people want, and start litigating these issues, its a pretty straight forward decision.

 

[Baltimorican]

Yes, because DEI isn't about getting qualified minorities opportunities. It's about getting unqualified minorities opportunities.

So they should have hired Graham, who is black, but because of that damn DEI they hired an unqualified black coach instead? Mother of Mercy that's a doozy.

 

[rmcjacket23]

So they should have hired Graham, who is black, but because of that damn DEI they hired an unqualified black coach instead? Mother of Mercy that's a doozy.

Correct. Diversity was important, qualifications were not. It'd be impossible to argue they were.

If you think that simply hiring a minority means it can't be a discriminatory hire, then you're part of the problem.