J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:06 amThe Wilves (the new plural for Wilf)...
I love that!
What does that matter? How many GMs around the league won’t take her seriously when she calls about a trade? How many qualified candidates for scouting or front office positions will overlook the Vikings? How many chauvinistic college coaches will be on the other end of the line going, “Do I really want my quarterback, a sure fire first-round draft choice that I’ve loved like a son, playing for a team run by a woman?”
And y’know, she may have the ability to overcome all that. Great for her if she bravely comes in and sets a new standard. My issue is that I’m getting old. I don’t care about breaking social ground. I just want the Minnesota Vikings to win a Super Bowl before I die. Winning is all that matters to me.
Sorry. I am fairly sure I’m not the only one who feels this way, although so far it appears I’m the only one willing to say it. So I’ll say this. Whoever they hire, I’ll give them a chance. If it’s a woman, then great. I’ll give her the same chance I’d give a man. No breaks because of gender. It has to work both ways. If it doesn’t, then gender equality is a myth.
I'm glad they're interviewing Catherine Raiche and if she ends up being the best choice for the job, that would be great. However, like you, I just want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl so they can hire a woman, a man or a squirrel for GM and I'm fine with it if that GM does a great job.
Jim
Thank you Jim. That’s all I’m saying.
I have no problem with women being in charge. My wife is an executive, and she’s brilliant. Tough but kind, a leader who creates other leaders. Someone who never throws a contemporary under the bus, even if they deserve it. Women can do great things. However, the NFL seems like a different animal to me. It’s SO male-dominated, an ocean of testosterone. If Raiche’s gender holds her back with her peers to a degree that it affects the Vikings’ ability to win, then that’s bad. Reasonable people hope that wouldn’t be the case, but it just makes me uneasy.
Just being honest here guys. Also know this … if they hire her, I’ll be all-in.
J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:53 amI have no problem with women being in charge. My wife is an executive, and she’s brilliant. Tough but kind, a leader who creates other leaders. Someone who never throws a contemporary under the bus, even if they deserve it. Women can do great things. However, the NFL seems like a different animal to me. It’s SO male-dominated, an ocean of testosterone. If Raiche’s gender holds her back with her peers to a degree that it affects the Vikings’ ability to win, then that’s bad. Reasonable people hope that wouldn’t be the case, but it just makes me uneasy.
Just being honest here guys. Also know this … if they hire her, I’ll be all-in.
I understood where you were coming from and the NFL is very male-dominated so unfortunately, I think there's legitimate cause for concern regarding how owners and peers might treat a female executive. As you said, reasonable people can hope there wouldn't be a problem but the world doesn't always operate as fairly as it should.
If the Raiders decide not to keep Rich Bisaccia as head coach, I hope the Vikings will take a good look at him. I was impressed with the job he did this season.
J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:06 am
I don’t care about breaking social ground.
Me neither. Hire the best person for the job. All stop. I don't want nor need either the head coach or GM hires to make social statements.
J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:06 am
No breaks because of gender. It has to work both ways. If it doesn’t, then gender equality is a myth.
Agree with that too. Whoever is hired has to show results and there should be timeframes set around achieving those results, preferably with input from the prospective hires so that those timeframes are reasonable in the eyes of everyone.
I’m with Kapp, hiring her just worries me in the sense of others around the league. I’d rather pass on her due to that worry.
And to be honest, the Wilves (as kapp says) really need to get this right. I don’t know if this is the right move because it’s a huge risk around the league. If she wants to make player trades, draft pick trades, etc, are there going to be a few teams that aren’t going to give her the time of day? I’d rather not take that chance.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
The idea that's a female GM is definitely a huge risk is speculative. As I wrote above, theres legitimate cause for concern because the NFL is so male-dominated but we don't know if that concern is truly justified (ie: if there would actually be problems). It's possible that many would be delighted to see a woman become an NFL GM and that she'd not only be treated fairly, but enthusiastically embraced (figuratively, not literally) by most around the league.
The last thing the Vikings should do is pass on Catherine Raiche because she's a woman. Not only would that be wrong but if they thought she was the best person for the job, it would also be self-destructive.
The Vikes need to focus on skills, qualifications, vision for the team, etc. Hire the best candidate, not just the best male candidate.
WTF are the Wilfs doing interviewing coaches before picking a GM?? Any quality GM will want to pick his own Head Coach….showboating by picking a female coach is BS PC crap. Any GM should be picked by a loong hx of success in management, ie player personnel person with a record of building super bowl contenders
chicagopurple wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:31 pm
WTF are the Wilfs doing interviewing coaches before picking a GM?? Any quality GM will want to pick his own Head Coach….showboating by picking a female coach is BS PC crap. Any GM should be picked by a loong hx of success in management, ie player personnel person with a record of building super bowl contenders
"BS PC Crap" is an ugly way to describe the possibility of the Vikings hiring a woman.
Just to be clear: they're not interviewing a Catherine Raiche for head coach, they're interviewing her for the GM position.
The more I learn about this subject, the less I think hiring a woman as GM would be problematic for any of the reasons discussed here. Yes, the NFL is a male-dominated league but women now fill 38% of jobs in the NFL's management office. Two women work as NFL referees. 12 women worked as NFL assistant coaches in 2021. The league is changing and I think that's great.
chicagopurple wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:31 pm
WTF are the Wilfs doing interviewing coaches before picking a GM?? Any quality GM will want to pick his own Head Coach….
They are doing it because these coaches are on playoff teams with very tight interview windows. And I'm guessing it is to initially assess if they are worthwhile candidates to pursue further once the GM is hired, and also to show interest so these coaches might hesitate before accepting an offer from another team.
chicagopurple wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:31 pm
WTF are the Wilfs doing interviewing coaches before picking a GM?? Any quality GM will want to pick his own Head Coach….showboating by picking a female coach is BS PC crap. Any GM should be picked by a loong hx of success in management, ie player personnel person with a record of building super bowl contenders
As I mentioned in another thread, the 49ers hired John Lynch as GM first, but they already knew they were going to hire Kyle Shanahan. It's been reported that way by both Jason LaConfora and Adam Schefter, the latter of which reported that Lynch actually called Shanahan to volunteer himself for the GM job.
Not saying that's the best way to go for every team. It's just how it reportedly went for San Francisco. Lynch and Shanahan have a great working relationship, so it's not impossible for a team to be successful doing it that way.
I've spoken here of my uneasiness to hire a woman as GM. But in fairness to Catherine Raiche, she actually does have the kind of history of success you mention. My whole thing is simple — don't pick her just to break social ground. That's good for a week's worth of headlines. Pick a GM based solely on the mission of bringing a Super Bowl trophy to the long-suffering fans of this team. If they actually do that, and Catherine Raiche is the person, then great. Just freaking win.
Mothman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:27 pm
The idea that's a female GM is definitely a huge risk is speculative. As I wrote above, theres legitimate cause for concern because the NFL is so male-dominated but we don't know if that concern is truly justified (ie: if there would actually be problems). It's possible that many would be delighted to see a woman become an NFL GM and that she'd not only be treated fairly, but enthusiastically embraced (figuratively, not literally) by most around the league.
The last thing the Vikings should do is pass on Catherine Raiche because she's a woman. Not only would that be wrong but if they thought she was the best person for the job, it would also be self-destructive.
The Vikes need to focus on skills, qualifications, vision for the team, etc. Hire the best candidate, not just the best male candidate.
I agree with you, Jim.
However, I don't think it would be out of line to ask her in an interview about how she would handle a misogynistic situation if it were to occur. I suppose the ACLU would blow a gasket over that, but I think it's a fair question ... even if it's unfair that a man would never be asked such a question. It's real. Plus, somebody like my wife would look at such a question this way — problems are simply opportunities in disguise. Such a question would give her a chance to shine in an interview.
chicagopurple wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:08 pm
I just don't see how she has enough experience at high lvl management to be the best choice, by far. It just stinks of grandstanding for pc headlines.
It is grandstanding and she is young but you never know. I wouldn't hire her because she doesn't have enough experience. Experience brings many things. Based on the Wilf's history with our team they seem not to be the type to follow traditional ways. Our current setup isn't traditional and the triangle wasn't traditional. I'd prefer to get a GM and then let the GM pick the HC, the scouting stuff, CAP monitor and whatever else a GM is responsible for. I have my GM choice but that will never happen and I'm sure others have there's also that will never happen. The Wilf's have the power and I do think they want to win. And they look outside the box. I think it was a good thing clearing both guys out. Many posters here are running out of time just based on averages. For us they need to knock it out of the park. I hope they do.
I love that!
