You don't know the bolded part, you're assuming like everyone else.
Yes, I
do know the bolded part. To remind you: I said that what you can't argue is that the BB spawn are the result of blind hiring. He knows his own effing name, innit?
What is this, opposite day? Oh yeah, it is. Moving to your next statement...
What we do know is that there is no functional difference between how Steve/Brian got their start in the organization compared to anyone else, and they haven't risen any faster than anyone else.
1. There is a difference in how they got their start. They got their start concurrent with their being the boss' children. That is different. I'll say that it is incredibly likely that they got their start, at least in part,
because they are his children.
I'm not saying they're bad at their respective jobs. Maybe we'll all be football-horny about a 1,000-year dynasty of Belichicks in a few years, who knows. All I am saying is that, yes, this is classic, textbook nepotism.
2, They have absolutely risen faster than 100% of the would-be team personnel who were not hired, most of whom are clowning around here lecturing all of us about who we woulda coulda shoulda drafted and how bad every call was that we ever made especially compared to whatever we didn't do.
Remember that "coaching assistants" are glorified interns. Almost no one hired into that role has any real experience coaching. They get coffee and make copies of gameplans.
A lot of positions throughout corporate america -- these teams are corporations, after all, albeit pretty hidebound,, privately held ones -- are internships. Hiring your kids for the internships, once again, freezes out some other kid. Lots of places look askance at that or forbid it. That's especially the case if it's a "plumb" internship, and if you don't think a spot on the NEP coaching staff is a dream at that age -- for anyone except the "legacies," at least -- fck, all I can say is you never waited any tables or set pins in the local bowling alley. Interns on congressional staffs in Washington are in what I'd guess is a pretty similar position... they have to be whip smart and get the boss coffee etc., then be able to write his bullet points, then maybe pick up his kid's suit at the cleaner's, because his kid has a big speech to his alma mater. Blah blah blah, And at least back in the day, they did it free... just in case they get to be serious staffers one day. I'm not one of those guys, by the way. They're hard-core hard-charging driven little type-A workaholics and all that... but MAN did they get pissed.... well, some of them... if the Congressman or Senator decided Jr. got the job, unless/until Jr. demonstrated his chops.
You never heard the phrase "coveted internship?"
The team's success has also been comparable, given they're in the middle of a rebuild. If they were dead last against the pass with Steve coaching the DB's, then he got promoted to DC, that would raise an eyebrow. But as the DB's coach in 2019 they were 2nd in passing yards allowed, first in passer rating against by almost 15 points, and had a 13/25 TD/INT ratio. And you think it's weird he gets promoted?
You've put them in a position where it doesn't matter how well they coach, you're just always going to assume they didn't earn anything because they're Belichicks.
1) I didn't say they were no good. I said their positions there are the product of nepotism. Did he have the DBs, by the way, or the safeties? I thought he moved from safeties to LBs.
2) No, I did not put them in that position. One Bill Belichick did. That is the natural implication of "dynastic thinking."
Once again, whether because of long familiarity with the program, rapport with the top guy, or whatever (not excluding genetics,) it might just work. Hell, Bill himself would work harder to coach up his own kid, for one thing.
But, the analog of that same argument is always the case.... and we still recognize the built-in negatives of this system of succession in, for example, government (Clintons, Bushes, and theorized Trumps notwithstanding,) business, etc.
I'm just saying, the Flores case is making me re-think the loosey-goosey, who-cares,maybe-nepotism-is-good, NFL coaching world.
Think about the developments as a system: This situation is an inroad toward a situation where you'd have a system of patronage in coaching positions, not just a coaching "fraternity," but literal brothers in coaching positions... and meanwhile, in the presence of
that system, you have that theatrical pretend Rooney Rule situation locking out the "other" guy.
Isn't that what institutional racism looks like? Nobody's
trying to lock out the Black guy, they just prefer other guys, this one time, for this one reason, hey, could have gone either way... but always just goes one way, And I want to repeat -- and I am serious -- in institutional racism, you don't
have to be a George Wallace racist. You just have to be blind. Hell you can go home and fight against
other kinds of racism as your main cause in life, but still be a contributor to maintaining institutions that result in discriminatory outcomes. So put together all the buddy system, all in the family stuff in the NFL... it's not identical to the whole racial imbalance that resulted in Flores' "can't win" experiences, but doesn't it go a long way toward explaining it?