Honestly, my gut is that Robinson got the nod because 1) He was willing to work with Mularkey, and 2) His roots in western Tennessee makes him a smart PR hire. That is not intended as a slam on Robinson or his philosophy....he is probably as equally qualified as the others. My point is that the decision to go with him was likely more based on intangibles and his willingness to march to the AAS drum (Mularkey). I also think that Robinson gave in on the Mularkey requirement because his roots are in Western Tennessee, and he really wanted this job.
I do think that this article was written out of frustration (sour grapes), but regardless of the reason it was written it does provide some confirmation of what we have strongly suspected for a long time.
LOL...yeah I remember that too. First time I heard his name was during that October game in 1999 (when every other Rams play was a false start by him it seemed)....then the next time I heard his name was when the Titans are all proud of themselves for letting Runyon go and signing this guy to replace him.
Clearly with this article and the drafting Cutler article he is trying to raise his profile with some goal in mind. NFL insider? With Mort battling cancer, perhaps he is jockeying for that gig. I agree with PK, he probably viewed the Titans job as his last chance and chose visibility over viability as a GM going forward.
First of all, if this guy ever wants to be a GM in the NFL, writing an article such as this is about the most idiotic thing he could have done. He’s burned a bridge and shared with the world he won’t hesitate to go public with whatever dealings he has with an NFL team that doesn’t go his way.
Dude obviously thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. Not being accepted for these jobs should have made him realize that he just might not be.
He thinks he was informed? He says the defense was Horton’s. Any candidate who says that obviously didn’t know who was behind the ’15 Titans defense.
Having said that, I think it’s obvious to all that AAS wanted Mularkey and the next GM was going to have to accept that before they got the job. Even if he said he was 100% behind Mularkey, I don't think this guy has a snowball's chance.
As for his approach. I read nothing to indicate he’d do anything special every other GM candidate wouldn’t do. Evaluate the processes. Establish identity. Blah blah blah.
He’s been outside the NFL for a long time for a reason. I’m sure he has a bright future as a writer for third-tier sports sites like Bleacher Report because he won’t be in the NFL anytime soon.
Dude obviously thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. Not being accepted for these jobs should have made him realize that he just might not be.
He thinks he was informed? He says the defense was Horton’s. Any candidate who says that obviously didn’t know who was behind the ’15 Titans defense.
Having said that, I think it’s obvious to all that AAS wanted Mularkey and the next GM was going to have to accept that before they got the job. Even if he said he was 100% behind Mularkey, I don't think this guy has a snowball's chance.
As for his approach. I read nothing to indicate he’d do anything special every other GM candidate wouldn’t do. Evaluate the processes. Establish identity. Blah blah blah.
He’s been outside the NFL for a long time for a reason. I’m sure he has a bright future as a writer for third-tier sports sites like Bleacher Report because he won’t be in the NFL anytime soon.
Agreed. He knows it too which is why he is standing on the table waving a red flag...
Don't disagree with what you're saying but it was an insightful piece. And I believe the process did indeed outline a fault with current ownership. It really just exposed that the entire hiring process by us was a sham relative to other franchise hiring practices.
I agree the coach search was a sham but don't see how this shows anything else except he's sour about not getting yet another GM job.
Based on what I'm reading, thank goodness the Titans hired Robinson over this joke.
It is very interesting how polarizing this piece was to people.
IMO I don't see sour grapes at all. I see someone creating a post mortem on a process that is completely hidden from the masses.
It's a way for other GMs and aspiring GMs to share and compare notes. The tech industry does this kind of thing ALL the time and its powerful stuff.
It's also a way to keep a FO honest. I wish EVERY GM wrote a piece like this after their experiences. Shady tactics would get a spot light, fan outcry would have more than just a "feeling" and maybe some actual weight behind their grievances.
Could you imagine if every candidate who "satisfied" the roony rule wrote a post mortem. My "feeling" is it is a BS interview that most likely offends the African American candidates. Now if those feelings are validated by a post mortem piece, the media and fans would have a field day and change would most certainly occur.
DL;DR
Any transparency is great in an industry that keeps the fans closed off from the behind-the-scenes actions of their operations.
In any industry I've ever been associated, it's called "burning a bridge". It shows Sundquist's character and, quite possibly, the reason he's not seen an NFL gig in a decade. He's shown every NFL exactly who he is by being openly critical. Think any other team is going to call on him?
Don't get me wrong. I don't necessarily agree his approach is wrong. I would think most top GM candidates would decline a job if their hands were tied as to who their HC would be. That's his choice as the choice of AAS was to make accepting Mularkey part of the team's requirements any new GM would have to accept.
I also don't think Sundquist's opinion that ownership wants to keep the status quo in the front office is accurate at all as Robinson has already said he would be evaluating the scouting department and making any changes he deemed necessary.
By airing this out in a third-rate sports website? It wasn't professional.
The Titans FO isn't going to change a thing based on what this guy put in an article. If anything, it only confirms to them they did the right thing by passing on him.
Right or wrong, AAS and Underwood handled this as they wanted. It's their choice. We may not agree but it's their choice to make. If you don't like it, don't go to the games. Lower income is the only thing which changes any business.
They won't and that's the problem. Most of these teams are anemic to constructive criticism. Introducing more critical reviews helps enlighten future and existing employees. It's what helps start reform when necessary. Look at websites like Glassdoor for instance. Most industries have a forum where people can go to critically examine their work environment and allow others to view it.
He did this openly, which I think is brave because there always has to be a first.
It's fairly accurate. He quotes AAS saying that keeping the coaching staff together is important. I interpreted that as keeping Mularkey and allowing him to pick and choose replacements.
Yea, what does that matter? Plenty of other major media sources have linked to it themselves, including PK, and written articles about their opinions on the piece. It was clearly eye catching and worth a discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if they wished he had written it for them.
Its taboo, though, so I can see how this may have been the only source open for him.
You're missing the point/bigger picture, though. Its about starting a movement and challenging the nature of these interviews. If he allows more GMs and HC to do this kind of thing, then awareness grows and the fire power the media and fans have greatly increases. Nothing will happen until something happens, if that makes sense.
Ray Rice almost got away with brutally beating his wife. It wasn't until TRANSPARENCY that allowed the media and fans to be aware and spread their voice. The NFL quickly changed their tune. An evolution in these type of articles could help combat against lazy FO's like AAS and the Titans.
I think you're making excuses for them while only providing half the solution to the issues. I agree, we shouldn't give them money, but that isn't enough.
I don't except "well its their choice to make so deal with it". Just because they are in their position doesn't mean every choice they make is the right one. Its our job to fight for the tools that will help us and the media challenge their decisions. Its only through checks and balances like those mentioned above that will allow for the better outcome of the consumer.
Through a blog? From someone who obviously wants to be get a job in the NFL? It was a stupid thing for him to do.
And he'll never work in an NFL front office because of it. Smart.
Yet we have new coordinators and position coaches already and Robinson is going to look at scouting after the draft. The only consistency is Mularkey who the owner felt deserved the chance.
We might all disagree he was deserving but there is nothing illegal or immoral about hiring him.
I don't know what business world you are in but, in all I know, the owner doesn't have to do anything EXCEPT what he/she wants within the guidelines of the law. Don't like it? Don't work for him/her.
If what an owner wants is stupid, or bad for business, then that's their prerogative. Am I totally missing your point?
You equate beating your wife to a GM interview? Seriously?
I must be missing your point.
What are you wanting to see happen? Pitchforks at the gates over at St. Thomas Sports Park?
You don't like what ownership is doing, then the only thing you can do is not support it with your time or money. Period.
It's their total right to handle their interviews however they want within the rules of the NFL. It's THEIR TEAM. That's the meaning of "ownership".
So we are getting into the weeds and its hard to comment on comments.
My point is not that Ray and Sundquist's article are equal. My point is transparency allows the media and the populous to change decision and results they want.
To use your logic in the Ray Rice case. The NFL and Roger Goodell get to do what they want to because they are the "owners" in this analogy. Your answer is: "Don't like it? Then stop watching NFL" which, IMO is not enough.
Instead, what happened, a video surfaced that showed people what happened. This allowed the people and media to criticize the NFL and Goodell for not taking a harsher discipline. This was especially compounded when they suspended someone for smoking pot around the same time.
The result was a decision change that would otherwise not have happened. The guys who "have the right to make what ever decision they like", will always fold if the heat is on them enough.
Not only was a decision changed, but the whole punishment process has been changed for domestic violence. Everyone has a boss, even owners, even investors.
So my point is two fold:
Transparency is important
Proactive Engagement > Disengagement
Its not enough to just disengage with a service you care about in order to make a point. You need a movement to take place and a outcry to improve and see results.
What does that mean in regards to the Titans? We all have a feeling that this ownership is lying or just being lazy. I want to see the media and fan base put heat on this FO so that they can either get their act together or sell the franchise.
The result should be an owner and FO who are doing absolutely EVERYTHING to win a superbowl and build a dynasty, and IMO Sundquist's article helps us do that. Its small right now, but if more things like this happen, it can grow to be a force.
That's about as far a reach as I've seen on this forum for quite some time.
The difference is clearly that beating your wife is illegal while what Sundquist says in his article is not. Not even close.
Again, the Titans may be a poorly-run franchise but they've done nothing illegal.
There are no grounds by anyone to force a sale. What we can do is not give them money which MIGHT lead to a change. But, I suspect, ownership feels firing their HC, GM and a bunch of coaches, in combination with the 25-30% player turnover we're about to see is a lot of change.
Yes. They should be. But, in AAS's mind, she may think she is.
Sundquist's article proves nothing except he lacks the character I'd want as a GM. All the sour grapes articles in the world from coaches or players won't force the owners to sell as long as fans buy seats.
It sounds like we just disagree fundamentally. You see a guy who is wining, where I see a guy who just went through an interview process and put a review of it on Glassdoor.
And you're absolutely wrong about the Ray Rice incident. Ray Rice avoided jail time. The NFL knew what he did to her, but it is NOT illegal for the NFL to NOT punish him. They own him as a "player" so they can, in your words "Do what they want".
They can punish him however they want, it is their decision. Except it wasn't, because after their decision came out, major media and populous outcry erupted with fury. This was compounded further when the second tape was released.
It was ONLY then that the NFL took his measly 2 game suspension and turned it into a suspension indefinitely. Ravens and NFL claim they never saw the tape, or got an accurate description, but multiple sources confirmed that Ray Rice described exactly what happened that night to them and that they had seen the tape.
It doesn't have to be illegal for a company to feel the pressure to change a decision on how they conduct themselves. We see it all the time.
But you act like it somehow tells us something we didn't already know and that it has some kind of power to change anything. It doesn't.
You seem to think AAS cares about what you or anyone else thinks of her hiring practices. She doesn't.
All Sundquist did was prove to the world why he's not been in an NFL front office the last decade and that he'll likely never get another interview.
Pressure from who? You really need understand how it works.
Profit motivates business. If fans don't buy tickets, she'll eventually feel it. That's the only way to generate change.
I don't mean to act like this specific article is going to change everything over night, or anything for that matter. I'm describing that its a positive piece for this industry because of its potential. If more HCs and GMs felt comfortable explaining their experiences and criticizing teams practices, then now we have a forum to find any shady stuff that comes out.
I mentioned the roony rule as an example. I'm really curious what would happen if all of those candidates did a post mortum about their interview experience. I can see a world where it becomes painfully obvious that its a waste of time and maybe even offensive to some of these guys.
The result: media and fan base question the role of the roony rule
The effect: who knows, maybe nothing, maybe the rule gets changed for the better.
AAS doesn't care right now, correct. Companies hate bad PR though. If they get heat from the press and people, they tend to fold. I'm not saying there is enough "heat" from his article alone.
Pressure from the media and the people (fans and none fans a like)
Fans didn't have to NOT buy NFL merch/tickets for Roger Goodell and Co to reverse their decision on Ray Rice.
Fans of blizzard games didn't have to not buy WoW/Diablo/SC2 for Blizzard to reverse their decision on using people's real names as avatars in game.
Dozens of High School football teams fans didn't have to not pay school taxes in order to get their name changed from "Red skins" to something else.
The list goes on. The point is that money is not always used as a direct line to threat companies/organizations. Bad PR, and pitchforks sometimes is enough. Both of them are best.
Just what shady stuff came from this article? Enlighten us.
You really need to understand that the outcry on the Ray Rice beating was because this was a violent, horrible crime and to connect it to the legal hiring practices of an NFL team is just crazy.
Again, tell us what the Titans did wrong in either of their GM or HC hires?
Note: you and I not agreeing with how it was handled is very much different than whether or not it was illegal or unethical.
Apparently, ownership didn't care enough about it to stick to their guns or they felt it would eventually lead to some not purchasing/playing the game.
Again, profit drives business decisions.
Bad PR eventually always leads to profit loss.
Dude lol. That is what I'm saying. I'm not sure if I'm just not making it clear enough, or perhaps we are so far in the mire, that its hard to see each others points.
I'll give this another shot and just try to be as short as possible.
1. Nothing crazy shady came out of the article. The POTENTIAL for future articles like this to unearth shady, odd, or lazy tactics by the teams is there however. Potential. Future. Not this article.
2. The handling of the Titans Hiring Process and the handling of the Ray Rice case were wrong. They can be handled by their ownership however they want but we agree they were handled wrong. Titans didn't do anything illegal. NFL didn't do anything illegal. Both were wrong though.
NFL only changed the way they handled it because of media and populous outcry. NOT because it was illegal. The same tactics can be used to combat the lazyness of Titans ownership. One is very extreme and a lot easier to understand than the other (Ray Rice), but doesn't mean that it can't happen with the Titans FO.
3. Profit drives business decisions. Correct.
"Well, just don't buy tickets" is a direct line threat to money.
Bad PR is an indirect line threat to money. Two different paths, same outcome.
IMO, you need both to make the strongest case necessary.
I'm also proving that indirect line threats to money (Bad PR) can also work by themselves alone, with out threats to stop buying merch.
On a side note I don't understand why someone can be so mad at this article. I understand questioning my personal thoughts on its potential and what not, but why are some of you seeing this and wishing it was never even written?
To use a tactic that some have mentioned. If you don't like, don't read it.
To use a tactic that some have mentioned. If you don't like, don't read it.
Me mad? Nope.
I'm just shocked that anyone thinks it was anything more than some bitter has-been venting.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
