Packers Hire 49ers' Mike McCarthy - The Alarming Pattern of Avoidance of "The Rooney Rule" by some NFL Organizations

The "Rooney Rule" was established to cause NFL organizations to at least interview and in more cases hire minority -- and more specfically black, coaches. After a review of the current pattern of hiring by many NFL teams over the course of the last month, I must sadly report that the Rooney Rule has failed.

What spurred me to write this entry -- as I attempt to hold back the tears that come from the news that The Green Bay Packers have hired San Francisco 49ers Offensive Coordinator Mike McCarthy as their new head coach -- is a wonderful trip I had to Seattle to visit a friend and attend the Seattle Seahawks game against the San Francisco 49ers last November. I really enjoyed the experience,and as a momentary aside, Qwest Field is an excellent place to watch a football game.

There was one thing -- and just one -- that was disturbing to me. The way San Francisco 49ers Offensive Coordinator Mike McCarthy called the plays during that contest.

I said this to my friend there, I've said it before, and now I'm putting it in writing. I can't see how he got his job considering that his game plans are 1) inflexible and 2) illogical. Let me provide some examples:

1) Against the Indianapolis Colts, Mc Carthy devises plays based on the Utah Spread Offense that then-head coach Urban Meyer developed and Alex Smith played in. The trouble is that McCarthy installed running plays and not passing plays for Smith. One play gained 2 yards; the other lost 2 yards, and I was flabergasted -- Smith isn't Michael Vick. It was as if he had installed a gimic rather than actually using plays that could help Smith.

2) Creating rollout pass plays that don't call for the quarterback to roll to a point and set his feet. This is really bothersome to watch. The most successful rollout plays were devised by Bill Walsh, and Al Davis before him; they call for the quarterback to rollout to a spot, then pass the football. The idea is to move the launch point of the pass first, not make the QB run. This is a common error in rollout design, even with run-pass options. It's no wonder Smith's success here is spotty, even though his ability to throw on the run makes up for terrible play design.

3) Not providing his quarterbacks with even a simple audible to take advantage of the most obvious defensive weakness. This was completely evident in the Seattle game, where the Seahawks called defenses stacked against the run on first down, what did the 49ers do? They ran. Seattle cornerbacks were lined up "bump and run" against the Niners Flanker and Split End. What did the 49ers do? Call a pass with "up" patterns to get a quick gain? No. What did they do? They ran.

On second down, the Seahawks defense "loosened" -- the cornerbacks were yards off the receivers, the safeties were back in obvious "two deep" positions, and the defensive line posised to rush the passer. What did the 49ers do? Pass.

It was enough to make me yell at McCarthy through the glass wall of the club section. I know someone got what I was saying -- it wasn't McCarthy.

4) Calling 30 runs against Seattle when they were giving the 49ers the pass. Especially on first down.

5) Calling four-wide receiver plays where there are three receivers on one side, and one pass catcher on the other, and then having the QB throw to the strong side where the three catchers are and ignoring the lone, single-covered receiver on the other side. This has happened way too often.

I could go on and on. McCarthy's early success with the Niners came because he was new to the team, and thus there was no "book" on what he would do with the 49ers offensive personel. Once NFL teams developed an analysis, they quickly bottled his offense during the year.

So all year long I'm stewing about McCarthy as the weak coaching link on the Niners, and what happens? The Green Bay Packers make this guy their coach -- without even seriously considering a black candidate. They talked to two, but selected someone not even as accomplished as Tim Lewis and Maurice Carthon.

What the heck is going on?

You can't tell me that out of over 100 black assistant coaches there aren't 20 that can be considered for head coaching positions. Look, I'm not a coach. But I'll tell you that I could take any NFL team's third string offense and develop schames to consistently beat that organization's first string defense. And I'm itching for some one to challenge me.

Why? Simple. Because -- more so that college and even high school coaches -- NFL coaches think in a consistent "box" of offensive approaches. Only once in every other decade does one person -- like Coach Walsh -- come along and get the chance to install an offensive system that really is a true shift in thinking. But with the Internet, offensive revolutions are starting at the high school and college level and not at the NFL.

Many of the people who know these are not white; they're black. Hue Jackson's a good example. Jackson has been an offensive coordinator at Cal, USC, and with the Washington Redskins. He's learned the most successful and advanced offensive concepts from Steve Spurrier and Steve Marriucci, to name some of them. Yet, he's litterally been banished to the place of receivers coach with the Bengals, forced to work with the tempermental personality of wide receiver Chad Johnson, while Offensive Coordinator Bob Bratkowski calls a set of predictable pass plays devoid of rollouts or sprint out passes, leaving his quarterbacks as sitting ducks when the pass is needed the most.

Meanwhile, the Houston Texans talk to Gary Kubiak, hire Dan Reeves as a consultant, and make a list of coaches that has contained no African American names until recently and if I'm a betting man and on this (and I am) that person will be "the token one."

Why? And why McCarthy? What is the deal? It seems that to some teams having white coaches is more important that winning. Black coaches? Just window dressing for "The Rooney Rule."

Yesterday at MacWorld San Francisco

I had the pleasure of attending my first Steve Jobs keynote speech at MacWorld, San Francisco yesterday. Well, it went like this: two plus hours of standing in line within Moscone Convention Center only to be ushered into an "overflow" crowd room to see his presentation on a couple of large screens.

I must admit to some disappointment. Especially since the dude next to me couldn't seem to keep to his own personal space, causing me to lean away from him and partway into the next seat, which was to my good fortune, empty. After a time, I got up and stood at the back of the room. That was better.

Once at my place at the back of this large room, I was able to comfortably enjoy Jobs' introduction of some hot new Apple products: the Intel-based IMacs, the new GarageBand for Podcasting, and other new devices.

This is not my first MacWorld, but it was my first Keynote speech. I'm going back for the Podcast seminars and lectures, but my advice for the future is this: skip the keynote unless you know you're going to get a front row seat and don't have to wake up at 4 AM to do it.

"King Kong" Director Peter Jackson Snubbed by Directors Guild of America (DGA)'s Awards -- Jackson Battled to Have Collegues Recognized

Read about it at the SBS Entertainment Business Blog with a click on this sentence.

"King Kong" Director Peter Jackson Snubbed by Directors Guild of America (DGA)'s Awards -- Jackson Battled to Have Collegues Recognized

The DGA -- Director's Guild of America's -- awards nominations were annouced. They are:

George Clooney (Good Night and Good Luck), Paul Haggis (Crash), Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain), Bennett Miller (Capote) and Steven Spielberg (Munich).

I did some research and learned that King Kong Director Peter Jackon had requested two of his co-workers to be honored as "Assistant Directors" along with him, something the DGA has never done. He did this back in November of 2005. So, it seems his film's being "locked out" of the lower awards for reasons having nothing to do with how good it is.

Since King Kong is picked as an Oscar "Best Picture" candidate, Jackson should be nominated for Best Director as well. It's not as if Jackson was acting out of hubris, but the pure recognition that the movie's production was not "all about him." That's rare and should be rewarded.

Go to www.oscar.com and tell them how you feel about that, before this political game is allowed to continue.

NFL Playoff Tickets Exchange

With a click on the title post link above, you can either sell your NFL Playoff tickets (don't scalp, please), or buy them and for any game.

Vince Young Enters The NFL Draft - Young's Stats at Texas

Texas Longhorns' Junior QB Vince Young's annouced his intention to enter the NFL Draft. I think he should be the first round pick of the Houston Texans; they can offer Dave Carr for trade for more draft picks, and use backup QB Tony Banks as the "trainee" for Young.

You can read more about Young and his statistics and records at Texas with a click on this sentence.

A Gestapo Administration by Paul Craig Roberts

This is another column comparing the Bush Administration to the Nixon Administration and unfavorably. Will impeachment trails ever occur, or is President Bush protected by a Republican majority in both House and Senate?


Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush's violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration’s illegal behavior.

Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler’s claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law.

Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.

Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.

Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?

There are two possible reasons.

One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.

The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.

What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?

Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?

These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator.

Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress' investigation of Bush's illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters.

What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler's claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees.

The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more "energy in the executive." Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.

September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?

January 2, 2006

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

You may email him at paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com