Patriots Position Coaching Changes (LOTS) :

2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: N/A

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:
Status
Not open for further replies.

patfanken

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Hell, Jerod Mayo getting the semi-DC job straight without going through the ranks is a much more problematic situation than Brian and Stephen. The same way they shouldn't be handed anything because of a name they should also not be denied a position they worked years for.
That's an excellent point. Mayo DID skip a lot of the steps that the BB boys and Troy had to go through. That said. Didn't BB once say something to the effect that Mayo was the smartest guy in the room while he played.
 

luuked

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
That's an excellent point. Mayo DID skip a lot of the steps that the BB boys and Troy had to go through. That said. Didn't BB once say something to the effect that Mayo was the smartest guy in the room while he played.

Of course and knowing how BB operates there is nothing that Mayo got handed. He did an outstanding job for someone in his first year as coach.

My point was more to emphasize how "nepotism" is just a more specific version of having a network to get your foot into the door. Mayo got in because of his experience as a player and was allowed to skip a ton of steps. The Belikids got in because of their name but then worked their way up from the ground floor. Lets not forget how low paid most of those early positions are to weed out people who really want it.
 

patchick

Moderatrix
Staff member
PatsFans.com Supporter
Bugs me how BB preaches you get what you earn but then has 2 sons on coaching staff.


Belichick won't keep around anyone who doesn't do the job. They all work hard. BUT--to get your foot in the door, it's 100% personal connections.

Two of his own kids, one kid of a close friend, 3 of his own former players, and on and on. When you look into the "outsiders" you inevitably find something about their initial hiring like Cam Achord "has personal ties to Patriots special teams coach Joe Judge "
 

Mike the Brit

Minuteman Target
PatsFans.com Supporter
Belichick won't keep around anyone who doesn't do the job. They all work hard. BUT--to get your foot in the door, it's 100% personal connections.

Two of his own kids, one kid of a close friend, 3 of his own former players, and on and on. When you look into the "outsiders" you inevitably find something about their initial hiring like Cam Achord "has personal ties to Patriots special teams coach Joe Judge "

But the thing about BB is that he has "personal connections" all over.

I remember reading that Dean Pees came into the organization because a relationship with Belichick developed after he had written to ask him a coaching question. It turns out, though, that Pees had previously coached under Saban at Michigan State and alongside Steve Belichick at Navy.
 

n6249c

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Because we have no clue if they got their based on their talent or because they are his sons. If the latter, it is a disadvantage to the team.

You would never see a CEO have 2 of their kids on their executive team...they call it nepotism.
You say you have no clue, then promptly demonstrate the degree of your cluelessness by jumping to a negative assertion.

bad troll!
 

n6249c

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
...

A second problem is that no matter how well you make other judgments, with relatives, assuming that you are a living being, you have an imperative to favor your own. This imperative would worm its way into whatever logical arguments you muster in their favor.

No, the Kim family does not just happen to have a knack for governmental excellence in the DPRK.
Maybe with your relatives. Lucky you. Some of us have relatives where the opposite is the case. And even for those who are not blessed with hostile siblings or inter generational drama there are those who are more demanding of their own flesh and blood than they are of outsiders.

also, on the flip side there’s very likely a much greater degree of loyalty from employees with blood ties than from those whose only allegiance is the result of a cash transaction,

and btw since you mention the Kim family, let’s ask Kim Jong-nam about your thesis that relatives are inevitably favored. Oops, forgot. We can’t. His brother had him killed. Oh well there goes that argument.
 

n6249c

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I do feel a little uneasy about how blatant the good ole boy club and nepotism is so pervasive. All the Lombardi's Belichick's , Wolfs, Shanahans, Grudens, etc etc. It's actually a little sickening. And people wonder why nfl management has zero relationship with the player demographics

.
Yeah all the nepotism, it’s obviously holding the Patriots down. Think how much better they could have been without that ingrown culture of groupthink.
 

RASTAN99

On the Game Day Roster
Plus, BB needs to be in great synch with his coaches and his children have a huge advantage over the other seven billion.

Bingo.

The "best person" for the job isn't the coach who in a silo is the "most qualified"...

...but rather, the "most qualified" who can ALSO work in harmony with BB.

Given the results he's produced I'm hard pressed to understand why anyone would ever question BB's choices as it goes to staffing up his coaching roster.
 

n6249c

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Bingo.
The "best person" for the job isn't the coach who in a silo is the "most qualified"...
...but rather, the "most qualified" who can ALSO work in harmony with BB.

Given the results he's produced I'm hard pressed to understand why anyone would ever question BB's choices as it goes to staffing up his coaching roster.
Consider those results in the context of the constant coaching staff churn and turnover he has had to endure and overcome through the years. From the volume of staff poached from him by other teams it’s quite clear that the rest of the NFL doesn’t have much question about BB’s hiring choices.
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
Maybe with your relatives. Lucky you. Some of us have relatives where the opposite is the case. And even for those who are not blessed with hostile siblings or inter generational drama there are those who are more demanding of their own flesh and blood than they are of outsiders.

also, on the flip side there’s very likely a much greater degree of loyalty from employees with blood ties than from those whose only allegiance is the result of a cash transaction,

and btw since you mention the Kim family, let’s ask Kim Jong-nam about your thesis that relatives are inevitably favored. Oops, forgot. We can’t. His brother had him killed. Oh well there goes that argument.

Good points all. I was thinking more of a father bringing his sons into a family biz than the sibling relationship, which I agree can be called toxic, although in some cases that's really not very kind to toxins.
 

n6249c

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
AKA, Jerod "Kushner" Mayo? I kid because I love.

I see responses about people being "against" the kids being on staff. I think both that (1) it is true those kids are probably brilliant football minds and (2) it is true that crusty old BB, like anybody else, think why not your own kids who are "good enough." Monarchies are corrosive, end of story, as compared with meritocracy.

That said, other factors pertain that don't exist any other way than in a dynastic setup, both good and bad. The kids might have more loyalty, the fam group would have more cohesion at the helm, things like that.

Hope for the best, I guess. I find my heart wanting the BB family to continue to be the heart of the pats, to never leave to a rival team even at the height of their coaching powers, waiting silently to become their father as he enters retirement, on the same team, hiring Brady's son who is suddenly obsessed with football, world without end, amen. The concept of hereditary royalty has a powerful pull on our pathetic species. I feel it too. I don't think it makes any sense that this pull is, in this situation and this situation only, without a downside :D But that's my brain talking, not my heart.
I’ve got to disagree with your corrosive statement.

I see several problems with it. Biggest problem is the idea that a meritocracy is even possible. Who determines merit? On what basis? You’re postulating an undefined nebulous concept as a superior alternative without giving any details, just to support your thesis that the other alternative is bad.

what about all those monarchies that were successful well functioning societies? Was Charlemagne really corrosive? How about Suleiman I, or Süleyman the Magnificent, of the Ottoman Empire? Were they really more corrosive than the leadership of our country today? Seems to me you started with a philosophical prejudice and then stated some hypothetical assumptions as universal truths, but it doesn’t hold up to skeptical scrutiny.

Thing is, it really doesn’t matter how it looks to anyone outside the organization. What matters is how it works and how it looks to the guy at the top. Bob Kraft owns the franchise, he’s the only vote that counts about how the system is structured. Or are you going to argue that he’s also guilty of nepotism because Jonathan?
 

RASTAN99

On the Game Day Roster
You would never see a CEO have 2 of their kids on their executive team...they call it nepotism.

Happens all the time.

Recognize these guys?

 

n6249c

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Good points all. I was thinking more of a father bringing his sons into a family biz than the sibling relationship, which I agree can be called toxic, although in some cases that's really not very kind to toxins.
Lulz. Take a read through the list of historical patricides on Wikipedia (link below) and count the monarchs deposed by their offspring. Family ties aren’t strong enough to fetter ambition.

The way I see it, the tension you are trying to articulate is between individual autocratic rule or leadership, and more depersonalized institutional culture. Nepotism is abhorrent in the latter, embraced in the former. However in general it seems to me that the latter is also characterized by the philosophy that the nail which stands up gets hammered down. In other words it selects for conformity and discourages outliers, valuing consistency over deviance. The former allows for more deviance in both directions, good and bad. A good king can rule a very successful society, but a bad king can turn it into a morass. Nepotism is a problem to outsiders because you can’t tell which you’ll get. But forbidding it may mean cutting off the best qualified and most talented candidate(s).

A personal anecdote, somewhat related. My uncle was department head at a prestigious university hospital and medical school. He was named acting Chief of Medicine while they did a search to replace the retiring incumbent. But he could not be considered for the job because of a policy to not promote from within to that position. So he was forced to leave and run a competing institution in order to continue his career growth. They avoided political pitfalls with that policy, but also lost literally decades of institutional knowledge and personal working relationships throughout the institution and the local community. Was it worth it? His success in his next position suggests maybe not...

I see nepotism as the same sort of two-edged sword, and my personal philosophy values pragmatism over principle so I’m not a fan of a blanket prohibition. Let results speak for themselves.

EDIT: oops. Here’s that link...
Patricide - Wikipedia
 

luuked

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Belichick won't keep around anyone who doesn't do the job. They all work hard. BUT--to get your foot in the door, it's 100% personal connections.

Two of his own kids, one kid of a close friend, 3 of his own former players, and on and on. When you look into the "outsiders" you inevitably find something about their initial hiring like Cam Achord "has personal ties to Patriots special teams coach Joe Judge "

I mean that is true for every NFL team and every coaching staff. There is very rarely a way into that world without knowing someone, being related to someone or working yourself up into the spotlight through the College football world.

The flipside is that the junior staff and third/second level coaches are paid so poorly relative to the amount of work that it is an environment that cleans away the overwhelming majority of incompetence anyway.

At some point the Peter principle hits and people will get promoted to a position that is outside their circle of competence. But that doesn't mean that they were not highly qualified or great at the jobs before that. Jim Tomsula is a good example of that. Absolute clown of a HC but excellent DL coach.

If people actually wanna discuss nepotism in the NFL in good faith I think one of the obvious places to start would be Tony Khan running the Jaguars Analytics division. Given how often they drafted in the top 10 and how little they got out in terms of franchise players it is a joke he is still running the show.
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
Lulz. Take a read through the list of historical patricides on Wikipedia (link below) and count the monarchs deposed by their offspring. Family ties aren’t strong enough to fetter ambition.

The way I see it, the tension you are trying to articulate is between individual autocratic rule or leadership, and more depersonalized institutional culture. Nepotism is abhorrent in the latter, embraced in the former. However in general it seems to me that the latter is also characterized by the philosophy that the nail which stands up gets hammered down. In other words it selects for conformity and discourages outliers, valuing consistency over deviance. The former allows for more deviance in both directions, good and bad. A good king can rule a very successful society, but a bad king can turn it into a morass. Nepotism is a problem to outsiders because you can’t tell which you’ll get. But forbidding it may mean cutting off the best qualified and most talented candidate(s).

A personal anecdote, somewhat related. My uncle was department head at a prestigious university hospital and medical school. He was named acting Chief of Medicine while they did a search to replace the retiring incumbent. But he could not be considered for the job because of a policy to not promote from within to that position. So he was forced to leave and run a competing institution in order to continue his career growth. They avoided political pitfalls with that policy, but also lost literally decades of institutional knowledge and personal working relationships throughout the institution and the local community. Was it worth it? His success in his next position suggests maybe not...

I see nepotism as the same sort of two-edged sword, and my personal philosophy values pragmatism over principle so I’m not a fan of a blanket prohibition. Let results speak for themselves.

EDIT: oops. Here’s that link...
Patricide - Wikipedia

Pardon the shortcut, but I've read enough history (not to mention mythology and bible stories) not to need a Wiki page on patricide (or, for that matter, child sacrifice.)

I am not, however, familiar with any reports of the younger Belichicks plotting Bill's demise, or conversely, of Bill's possible sacrifice of his children to Moloch.

Nepotism in the Pats context might (doubtfully) respond to some familiar emotional family resonances, in keeping with extreme cases involving folks like Oedipus. But I don't think so.

I suppose the parent-child pressure cooker is as well ensconced in what little we know of psychology as sibling rivalry; in terms of family fights, there are those who believe we're all driven by urges to murder one parent and shtup the other (and those who believe we're driven by the need to eliminate our siblings to reduce competition for mommy's lovin'.)

However, while I am not the greatest of buddies with my brother, we have not (as adults) actually taken active steps toward offing one another or for that matter, boffing or offing our parents. Nor has anybody I've ever known. Patricides and fratricides in the news seem quite unusual, infanticides perhaps less so, although they're often conflated with abortion, in which nobody you've ever met is harmed.

This is critical in our context, and not up for an idiotic veer into politics; The Belichick boys are, after all, born, and any urge by their father to kill them would be in the context of born (and for that matter, raised) offspring.

My world is rife, however, with nepotism. I need only look at the building manager (not mine at present, although I've seen this,) who suck at their jobs but happen -- just happen -- t0 be the owner's daughter or son. Or, not to drag politics into it, but the children of a president who just happen to be the best Americans out of 330 million at whatever the hell it is they're supposed to be doing in the white house. For that matter, you could make the same critique of Hilary Clinton vis a vis Bill, whatever policy chops of her own she had going into Bill's presidency.

Back to what we see every day, nepotism is so widespread because it is, contrary to the wikipedia page on patricide, a biological imperative to advance the lot of one's offspring.

One does not, typically, will one's fortune to a hit man to have one's childrens, siblings, or parents (if alive) murdered. One typically cuts them out of the will, if one is on the outs with them. One rather gives one's belongings to one's children, hoping to better their lot. Why? A sentimental answer, to give an emotional name to a phenomenon that answers to biological urges, is that one loves them. I suppose. But it is a great statement of disdain not to will things to one's own children in our culture. The default is to better their lot, even if there is no special love with them, and you see them perhaps twice a year.

I think rather that we do for our children for reasons going back to biology, although the reasons are enhanced by personal affection and by cultural preference.

What is important here, however, is that our preference is automatic. It happens as the default, if nothing interferes with this course. In unusual cases, the family dynamic might pervert the usual course of events into killing one's children, parents, or siblings. In ordinary circumstances, however, one favors those close to oneself.

Recognition of this fact caused a whole split in evolutionary biology with the publication of Dawkin's The Selfish Gene in 1976. He began what became that book with an inquiry into altruism: Why might we lay down our lives for another? Well, in terms of what we do unconsciously, it's not just any other. We tend to lay down our lives to save those closest to us. Specific cases differ, but the big mass of altruistic behavior expresses rules that boil down to "save the greatest concentration of genes like my own." This is often rendered as "You'll lay down your life for X siblings, or Y first cousins, or Z second cousins." (with the variables defined)

The point of Dawkin's book wasn't to posit this observation, it was to explain the observation which was already out there and well known. I'm sure there are ins and outs about why you'd save good breeding stock (a partner one posits producing offspring with, etc.)

I'm the first one to say "Well that's not how my individual psychology works!" Okay, that's what I believe, and I could offer proof to that effect.

However, when one measures what happens broadly across society, one finds people trying to benefit those in their families. Headline cases include the Felicity Huffmans of the world who were fixing admissions into universities on behalf off their young; dynastic politics (in the main, accepting of course that the incentives of said politics as well as individual whim can result in other outcomes), and most importantly because it is most broad, the anti-meritocratic institution of inheritance. Also importantly, I don't know how my preference for those genetically close to me would express itself; therefore, there are quite logical rules against it in many fields of endeavor (and the urge is so strong that these rules are often flagrantly violated, and the violations often not zealously pursued, because, perhaps, the nepotistic urge is so pervasive.)

Side note regarding exceptions that prove the rule: you're focusing, for example, on the murder of one uncle, when the succession has gone through several generations to date, involving not only the Dear Leader at the center of the arrangement, but most other figures in the family. I'm guessing that the theoretical reason for his demise was that he was viewed as a threat or a bother, in a way that only matters because of his membership in the tiny genetic group in whose hands power concentrates in Korea; no dynasty, and the uncle's life is very different, and more likely comes to an uneventful close.

I am not judging meritocracy as inherently good for all of society in all instances, at least not here, in a non-political football board.

I am merely observing that nepotism is both a biologically favored and widespread pitfall, and that this pitfall is corrosive to any notion of meritocracy. Its coexistence with competitive drive for the prizes at the top of family dynasty politics is a special and rare case, as compared with the everyday politics of petty nepotism you can see all around you (in workplaces and the like.)

Belichick is likely to have been influenced by the tendency to favor those genetically close to oneself. He is unlikely to be retaining his offspring as a prelude to their murders.

Stay relevant baby.
 
Last edited:

luuked

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I am merely observing that nepotism is both a biologically favored and widespread pitfall, and that this pitfall is corrosive to any notion of meritocracy. Its coexistence with competitive drive for the prizes at the top of family dynasty politics is a special and rare case, as compared with the everyday politics of petty nepotism you can see all around you (in workplaces and the like.)

You are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be.

Brian Belichick has been doing things on the Pats sideline for 14 years now. Starting with holding clipboards, charting plays and whatnot in his teenage years. Same with Stephen. Both have not been living adjacent to football but been in the right at the center of a football life.

This is not like the Jaguars where Khan brings in his business school graduate son to run the football analytics.

Putting all this together under "nepotism" just because in both cases the involved people are fathers and sons is just silly and reductive.

If you want to write some grand thesis on nepotism in general get yourself a blog, but the discussion in this thread was specifically about Belichick and his kids. And not much you have written over the last few pages so far deals with that specific topic.
 
Last edited:

n6249c

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I think we’re closer to agreeing than it might appear. There’s a general problem of people having preference and hiring for reasons unrelated to performance. Nepotism is one. Tribalism, nationalism, racism, sexism are others. Those are all wrong, clearly. But there’s also a problem going too far the other direction and actively discriminating against those who would otherwise be preferred. That’s why affirmative action and reparations are so controversial. There’s not an easy solution to the broad problem, we are unlikely to agree on what’s correct for a specific example, or even what an abstract yardstick of correctness would be. That’s a political agreement, and I balk at political correctness as a matter of principle.

I think it’s appropriate to closely scrutinize decisions benefitting members of favored groups, like this. I also think it’s interesting that this has now become such a controversial issue around the Patriots, makes me wonder if it’s result of someone wanting to stir stuff up around the team than having a real concern about fairness. Not to say those discussing aren’t concerned about fairness, but how did the discussion start? And how many other teams could be the center of such a discussion but aren’t, because they aren’t the Patriots?

also interesting to note that this discussion goes beyond this forum. I found this on Twitter, which I think also illustrates the answer about deserving the job based on knowledge and experience. Note that Brian is 26 years old, has been on the sidelines at least half his life. Just use that to define the cohort for hiring consideration and see how he stays up against the others with that qualification as the yardstick for judging nepotism,

Pardon the shortcut, but I've read enough history (not to mention mythology and bible stories) not to need a Wiki page on patricide (or, for that matter, child sacrifice.)

I am not, however, familiar with any reports of the younger Belichicks plotting Bill's demise, or conversely, of Bill's possible sacrifice of his children to Moloch.

Nepotism in the Pats context might (doubtfully) respond to some familiar emotional family resonances, in keeping with extreme cases involving folks like Oedipus. But I don't think so.

I suppose the parent-child pressure cooker is as well ensconced in what little we know of psychology as sibling rivalry; in terms of family fights, there are those who believe we're all driven by urges to murder one parent and shtup the other (and those who believe we're driven by the need to eliminate our siblings to reduce competition for mommy's lovin'.)

However, while I am not the greatest of buddies with my brother, we have not (as adults) actually taken active steps toward offing one another or for that matter, boffing or offing our parents. Nor has anybody I've ever known. Patricides and fratricides in the news seem quite unusual, infanticides perhaps less so, although they're often conflated with abortion, in which nobody you've ever met is harmed.

This is critical in our context, and not up for an idiotic veer into politics; The Belichick boys are, after all, born, and any urge by their father to kill them would be in the context of born (and for that matter, raised) offspring.

My world is rife, however, with nepotism. I need only look at the building manager (not mine at present, although I've seen this,) who suck at their jobs but happen -- just happen -- t0 be the owner's daughter or son. Or, not to drag politics into it, but the children of a president who just happen to be the best Americans out of 330 million at whatever the hell it is they're supposed to be doing in the white house. For that matter, you could make the same critique of Hilary Clinton vis a vis Bill, whatever policy chops of her own she had going into Bill's presidency.

Back to what we see every day, nepotism is so widespread because it is, contrary to the wikipedia page on patricide, a biological imperative to advance the lot of one's offspring.

One does not, typically, will one's fortune to a hit man to have one's childrens, siblings, or parents (if alive) murdered. One typically cuts them out of the will, if one is on the outs with them. One rather gives one's belongings to one's children, hoping to better their lot. Why? A sentimental answer, to give an emotional name to a phenomenon that answers to biological urges, is that one loves them. I suppose. But it is a great statement of disdain not to will things to one's own children in our culture. The default is to better their lot, even if there is no special love with them, and you see them perhaps twice a year.

I think rather that we do for our children for reasons going back to biology, although the reasons are enhanced by personal affection and by cultural preference.

What is important here, however, is that our preference is automatic. It happens as the default, if nothing interferes with this course. In unusual cases, the family dynamic might pervert the usual course of events into killing one's children, parents, or siblings. In ordinary circumstances, however, one favors those close to oneself.

Recognition of this fact caused a whole split in evolutionary biology with the publication of Dawkin's The Selfish Gene in 1976. He began what became that book with an inquiry into altruism: Why might we lay down our lives for another? Well, in terms of what we do unconsciously, it's not just any other. We tend to lay down our lives to save those closest to us. Specific cases differ, but the big mass of altruistic behavior expresses rules that boil down to "save the greatest concentration of genes like my own." This is often rendered as "You'll lay down your life for X siblings, or Y first cousins, or Z second cousins." (with the variables defined)

The point of Dawkin's book wasn't to posit this observation, it was to explain the observation which was already out there and well known. I'm sure there are ins and outs about why you'd save good breeding stock (a partner one posits producing offspring with, etc.)

I'm the first one to say "Well that's not how my individual psychology works!" Okay, that's what I believe, and I could offer proof to that effect.

However, when one measures what happens broadly across society, one finds people trying to benefit those in their families. Headline cases include the Felicity Huffmans of the world who were fixing admissions into universities on behalf off their young; dynastic politics (in the main, accepting of course that the incentives of said politics as well as individual whim can result in other outcomes), and most importantly because it is most broad, the anti-meritocratic institution of inheritance. Also importantly, I don't know how my preference for those genetically close to me would express itself; therefore, there are quite logical rules against it in many fields of endeavor (and the urge is so strong that these rules are often flagrantly violated, and the violations often not zealously pursued, because, perhaps, the nepotistic urge is so pervasive.)

Side note regarding exceptions that prove the rule: you're focusing, for example, on the murder of one uncle, when the succession has gone through several generations to date, involving not only the Dear Leader at the center of the arrangement, but most other figures in the family. I'm guessing that the theoretical reason for his demise was that he was viewed as a threat or a bother, in a way that only matters because of his membership in the tiny genetic group in whose hands power concentrates in Korea; no dynasty, and the uncle's life is very different, and more likely comes to an uneventful close.

I am not judging meritocracy as inherently good for all of society in all instances, at least not here, in a non-political football board.

I am merely observing that nepotism is both a biologically favored and widespread pitfall, and that this pitfall is corrosive to any notion of meritocracy. Its coexistence with competitive drive for the prizes at the top of family dynasty politics is a special and rare case, as compared with the everyday politics of petty nepotism you can see all around you (in workplaces and the like.)

Belichick is likely to have been influenced by the tendency to favor those genetically close to oneself. He is unlikely to be retaining his offspring as a prelude to their murders.

Stay relevant baby.
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
You are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be.

Brian Belichick has been doing things on the Pats sideline for 14 years now. Starting with holding clipboards, charting plays and whatnot in his teenage years. Same with Stephen. Both have not been living adjacent to football but been in the right at the center of a football life.

This is not like the Jaguars where Khan brings in his business school graduate son to run the football analytics.

Putting all this together under "nepotism" just because in both cases the involved people are fathers and sons is just silly and reductive.

If you want to write some grand thesis on nepotism in general get yourself a blog, but the discussion in this thread was specifically about Belichick and his kids. And not much you have written over the last few pages so far deals with that specific topic.

You're right, in that there is no reason to go to this depth.

Simply put, BB sees little corrosive effect, or does not mind said effect, introduced by hiring his sons. It it almost certainly present, and almost certainly invisible to BB himself, if in fact he is a human being.

That's all. It does not mean we're doomed. It means we tend to like whatever BB is into, and by all unbiased thinking, this is not likely the configuration that most responds to the imperative of creating the best possible chance for the NE Patriots to win.

But our hearts all respond to dynastic appeals. Someone here had a sn, "SignBabyBrady" when his son was young. It's natural. We also assume that everything BB does is smarter than whatever we're thinking. Shrug. One thing he can't think past is his own unconscious biases, just like everybody else.

Doesn't mean he's destined to fail to the extent his kids are involved. It means it's not the configuration most likely to predict success.

Sorry to burst yawl's bubbles, but it's not brilliant b/c the Pats do it, inherently. I don't like to say much against BB moves in general, but this aspect of their business starts out in the hole.
 

luuked

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Doesn't mean he's destined to fail to the extent his kids are involved. It means it's not the configuration most likely to predict success.

That is just your own cognitive bias talking. In reality we see the McVays, Belichicks, Shanahans all having a lot of success despite getting their feet into the door as kids of connected parents. Do all of them have success ? No, but it is a far cry from "most likely".

We are talking about football specifically and not some dynasties of dictators in North Korea or politicans in the US. And unlike politics or many other fields the reality in sports is that the closer to the field you get the more blatant nepotism tends to clean itself up. None of the low level positions come with status in monetary or any other terms.

You are just belittling and denigrating the work and effort of people just because of their last name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top