Report: Flores Suing The NFL, Dolphins & Giants

"resnor wrote:

NOW the firing makes sense.

**** Flores, though. He took the job KNOWING they were not looking to win. Then he did the opposite of what he was hired to do. That's pretty much bull****.

He WON the games the fans and owner wanted him to LOSE!!

He LOST the big games that the owner and Fans wanted him to WIN!!

"Pennington's Limp Arm wrote:

Technically he is correct.
What the Giants did is racist.

The only reason NYG interviewed him is because of the colour of his skin… the NFL forces teams to check ‘the minority candidate’ box.
Therefore it is systemic because of the NFL rules/ system.

They already hired their next coach before they even interviewed Flores. They wasted the mans time. He may have spent days preparing for the interview etc. Literally only went through with the sham interview bc he was black.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree a team is and should be free to hire whoever they want. But they USED Flores to meet a quota. That seems pretty clear if this report is accurate.

The only reason the Giants interviewed him is because the NFL made them. If they knew they wanted Daboll all along, why bother interviewing Flores. It's ridiculous. It's not racism, it's the Giants thinking Daboll was the better man for the job

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Is this Brady?

I would think it's Watson.

"KeyFin wrote:

I would think it's Watson.

That is too early to be Watson

"Vinny Fins wrote:

Alotta white people dismissing racism as athing in This thread

Just used to it by now.

"KeyFin wrote:

An owner is free to hire whoever he wants- after he interviews a minority candidate and gives them a fair shot. It looks like the Giants chose the white guy 3 days before Flores (or any minority) was interviewed...that's a no-no.

But if they knew the white guy was their guy all along, why should they be forced to interview someone they have no interest in hiring? I know it's a rule but it's stupid. If I'm a black coach, I want to be interviewed because the team is legitimately interested, not because they are being forced to.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

That is too early to be Watson

But is it? It's earlier than we knew Watson wanted out...but it could have been him.

"canesz06 wrote:

But if they knew the white guy was their guy all along, why should they be forced to interview someone they have no interest in hiring? I know it's a rule but it's stupid. If I'm a black coach, I want to be interviewed because the team is legitimately interested, not because they are being forced to.

Exactly. It feels like Flores is saying it's a racist rule.

"KeyFin wrote:

I would think it's Watson.

Doesn't fit Flores racism narrative.

"canesz06 wrote:

The only reason the Giants interviewed him is because the NFL made them. If they knew they wanted Daboll all along, why bother interviewing Flores. It's ridiculous. It's not racism, it's the Giants thinking Daboll was the better man for the job

But he’s technically correct because of the rules but I don‘t think racism is the reason he got fired or doesn’t have a new job as a HC…

"KeyFin wrote:

But is it? It's earlier than we knew Watson wanted out...but it could have been him.

Signing a HUGE extension is a weird way of showing you want out.

The Giants also interviewed Patrick Graham, their DC, who is black. They did not need to interview Flores for Rooney Rule requirements. That said, essentially hiring the white dude before interviewing the black dude's is probably going to get a slap from the league, but it's not like other teams haven't just paid the fine and moved on (like the Raiders did when they hired Gruden iirc).

Also worth pointing out that paying for a loss isn't strictly speaking about throwing a game. It could have been a matter like starting Rosen instead of Fitz, but Flores refused. There is a difference between intentionally losing vs. minimizing the chance of a win.

People are immediately jumping to a "throwing" mentality here when that may not actually be the case. I also agree with Dupree that it sounds more like a bonus to placate the coach for losing rather than demanding he throw away games intentionally by making bad calls or something. There is no way that the players themselves would have thrown plays in order to intentionally lose. The coach controls who is on the field, and the play those players run, but not how the players execute.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Signing a HUGE extension is a weird way of showing you want out.

Yeah, you're right- Watson stuff started in 2021. Late 2019 was too early.

"Pennington's Limp Arm wrote:

He WON the games the fans and owner wanted him to LOSE!!

He LOST the big games that the owner and Fans wanted him to WIN!!

I only wanted wins.

"texanphinatic wrote:

The Giants also interviewed Patrick Graham, their DC, who is black. They did not need to interview Flores for Rooney Rule requirements. That said, essentially hiring the white dude before interviewing the black dude's is probably going to get a slap from the league, but it's not like other teams haven't just paid the fine and moved on (like the Raiders did when they hired Gruden iirc).

Also worth pointing out that paying for a loss isn't strictly speaking about throwing a game. It could have been a matter like starting Rosen instead of Fitz, but Flores refused. People are immediately jumping to a "throwing" mentality here when that may not actually be the case. I also agree with Dupree that it sounds more like a bonus to placate the coach for losing rather than demanding he throw away games intentionally by making bad calls or something. There is no way that the players themselves would have thrown plays in order to intentionally lose. The coach controls who is on the field, and the play those players run, but not how the players execute.

Offering him a bounty on losses is paying him to lose and at least suggesting the possibly to him that he should try to lose or throw.

If they wanted to placate him for losing they would have just given him money regardless. Come on we know what is being suggested here.

Bellicheat in peak grandpa texting form.
I cant stop laughing at this convo.

"Fireland wrote:

Offering him a bounty on losses is paying him to lose and at least suggesting the possibly to him that he should try to lose or throw.

If they wanted to placate him for losing they would have just given him money regardless. Come on we know what is being suggested here.

What is being suggested is what happens in pretty much every league every year. This just has a potential dollar figure attached.

"texanphinatic wrote:

What is being suggested is what happens in pretty much every league every year. This just has a potential dollar figure attached.

I don't disagree but paying your coach a bonus to lose is going to look a little different

Flores says that he was offered money but also that Grier said Ross was angry when Flores was winning. If true then Ross wasn't just trying to keep Flores happy, he wanted Flores to lose.

Try telling the players they have an owner that is angry they played their hearts out and won, that he wants them to play worse and lose.

This is so………..

Dolphins I believe it. If Ross wanted us to fail and tried to bribe his head coach into losing games I want the NFL to step in and force Ross to sell the team.

He would essentially be fixing the game.

"Dorfdad wrote:

This is so………..

Dolphins I believe it. If Ross wanted us to fail and tried to bribe his head coach into losing games I want the NFL to step in and force Ross to sell the team.

He would essentially be fixing the game.

If they never forced Snyder to sell his team, slim chance they will force Ross.