Skip to content

Browns add scouts to their staff....female scouts

The Browns Board
52 10 1.1k 1
  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #1

    https://sports.yahoo.com/browns-add-two-female-scouts-164548957.html

    The Browns have added a pair of female scouts, as they continue to build one of the league’s more diverse staffs.

    Via Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Browns have hired Riley Hecklinski as a full-time scouting assistant in the research department, and Kathleen Wood as a scouting fellow for the 2020 season.

    Hecklinski, a former softball player at Indiana State, has previously interned for the Senior Bowl and in recruiting for the University of Kansas.

    Wood, a former private investigator, worked for the Senior Bowl last season. She also worked as a scouting fellow and intern for the Bills and Eagles.

    Earlier this offseason, the Browns hired Callie Brownson as coach Kevin Stefanski’s chief of staff. General Manager Andrew Berry is one of the league’s two minority G.M.s.

  • nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by nickers
    #2

    Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Clowns name Katie Sowers as their next HC "Coffee Fetcher" in 2 years..... LOL A softball player and a PI?.. What the fuck do these dumb broads know about football?.. More stupid shit from the CLOWNZ!

  • nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #3

    Zombo said:

    A good private investigator is exactly what the Browns need. And the other chick is obviously serious about getting in the business.

    Kudos for them and kudos to the Browns.

    Do you hate everybody but white men? Actually seems like you hate a lot of them too.

    Z

    I hate everyone equally 😛

  • OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by Orion
    #4

    Zombo said:

    A good private investigator is exactly what the Browns need.

    ....first thing that popped into MY mind.  Dig into the slightly hidden history of some of the guys we're thinking of investing in.

    Are the girls black?  Extra Brownie Points if they are.

    Off the charts bonus points if they were black, asian, female LGBTUVWXYZ.

  • Zombo said:

    A good private investigator is exactly what the Browns need.

    ....first thing that popped into MY mind.  Dig into the slightly hidden history of some of the guys we're thinking of investing in.

    Are the girls black?  Extra Brownie Points if they are.

    Off the charts bonus points if they were black, asian, female LGBTUVWXYZ.

    U Unsympathetic wrote on last edited by Unsympathetic
    #5

    @orion said:

    ....first thing that popped into MY mind.  Dig into the slightly hidden history of some of the guys we're thinking of investing in.

    Are the girls black?  Extra Brownie Points if they are.

    Off the charts bonus points if they were black, asian, female LGBTUVWXYZ.

    Why does it matter to YOU who or what they are? 

    If they're good at the job -- accurately identifying athletic strengths and weaknesses / creating usable documents for the people they report to -- then hire them, period dot.

    Why, exactly, are YOU biased against them?  The job isn't. 

    We didn't doubt it, but thanks for demonstrating that people like you are the reason this needs to be publicized, of course.

  • IbleedbrownI Ibleedbrown wrote on last edited by
    #6

    I see it as a positive. The results are as yet to be determined, but we seem to have a FO/coaching staff that values data and collaboration, so ladies who bring a different perspective into the mix can only help. If you do what everyone else does, you get what everyone else gets.

  • Zombo said:

    A good private investigator is exactly what the Browns need. And the other chick is obviously serious about getting in the business.

    Kudos for them and kudos to the Browns.

    Do you hate everybody but white men? Actually seems like you hate a lot of them too.

    Z

    I hate everyone equally 😛

    gumby73G gumby73 wrote on last edited by
    #7

    @nickers said:

    I hate everyone equally 😛

     Till I find some photos.?‍♀️..  This saves promoted Ryan Grigson from making & fetching the coffee ☕?‍♀️ 

  • @orion said:

    ....first thing that popped into MY mind.  Dig into the slightly hidden history of some of the guys we're thinking of investing in.

    Are the girls black?  Extra Brownie Points if they are.

    Off the charts bonus points if they were black, asian, female LGBTUVWXYZ.

    Why does it matter to YOU who or what they are? 

    If they're good at the job -- accurately identifying athletic strengths and weaknesses / creating usable documents for the people they report to -- then hire them, period dot.

    Why, exactly, are YOU biased against them?  The job isn't. 

    We didn't doubt it, but thanks for demonstrating that people like you are the reason this needs to be publicized, of course.

    OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by
    #8

    @unsympathetic said:

    Why, exactly, are YOU biased against them? 

    I'm not.  I'm fine with it in fact.  So long as they interviewed people and chose the best fit for the job(s).  Which I'm sure they did.

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female LGBTUVWXYZ.   Rest assured that there's married white males out there that were better qualified, that didn't get jobs because a certain applicant made their department / company look more diversified.....be it race, nationality, gender, whatever.   I bet we all know someone who's been through that.  I do.  Now, I'm not saying that blacks, women, gay, etc. aren't discriminated against....but the pendulum can swing quite far in either direction.

  • @unsympathetic said:

    Why, exactly, are YOU biased against them? 

    I'm not.  I'm fine with it in fact.  So long as they interviewed people and chose the best fit for the job(s).  Which I'm sure they did.

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female LGBTUVWXYZ.   Rest assured that there's married white males out there that were better qualified, that didn't get jobs because a certain applicant made their department / company look more diversified.....be it race, nationality, gender, whatever.   I bet we all know someone who's been through that.  I do.  Now, I'm not saying that blacks, women, gay, etc. aren't discriminated against....but the pendulum can swing quite far in either direction.

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #9

    @orion said:

    I'm not.  I'm fine with it in fact.  So long as they interviewed people and chose the best fit for the job(s).  Which I'm sure they did.

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female LGBTUVWXYZ.   Rest assured that there's married white males out there that were better qualified, that didn't get jobs because a certain applicant made their department / company look more diversified.....be it race, nationality, gender, whatever.   I bet we all know someone who's been through that.  I do.  Now, I'm not saying that blacks, women, gay, etc. aren't discriminated against....but the pendulum can swing quite far in either direction.

    These chicks have 0 qualifications in my view.. They have 0 pedigree

  • MLD WoodyM MLD Woody wrote on last edited by
    #10

    Nickers is an artifact

    Artifacts should be contained in the Poli board

  • @orion said:

    I'm not.  I'm fine with it in fact.  So long as they interviewed people and chose the best fit for the job(s).  Which I'm sure they did.

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female LGBTUVWXYZ.   Rest assured that there's married white males out there that were better qualified, that didn't get jobs because a certain applicant made their department / company look more diversified.....be it race, nationality, gender, whatever.   I bet we all know someone who's been through that.  I do.  Now, I'm not saying that blacks, women, gay, etc. aren't discriminated against....but the pendulum can swing quite far in either direction.

    These chicks have 0 qualifications in my view.. They have 0 pedigree

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #11

    @nickers said:

    These chicks have 0 qualifications in my view.. They have 0 pedigree

    Simply because they have vaginas?

  • @orion said:

    I'm not.  I'm fine with it in fact.  So long as they interviewed people and chose the best fit for the job(s).  Which I'm sure they did.

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female LGBTUVWXYZ.   Rest assured that there's married white males out there that were better qualified, that didn't get jobs because a certain applicant made their department / company look more diversified.....be it race, nationality, gender, whatever.   I bet we all know someone who's been through that.  I do.  Now, I'm not saying that blacks, women, gay, etc. aren't discriminated against....but the pendulum can swing quite far in either direction.

    These chicks have 0 qualifications in my view.. They have 0 pedigree

    IbleedbrownI Ibleedbrown wrote on last edited by
    #12

    @nickers said:

    These chicks have 0 qualifications in my view.. They have 0 pedigree

    Links to your research?

  • @nickers said:

    These chicks have 0 qualifications in my view.. They have 0 pedigree

    Links to your research?

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #13

    @ibleedbrown said:

    Links to your research?

    read the article on top

  • @nickers said:

    These chicks have 0 qualifications in my view.. They have 0 pedigree

    Simply because they have vaginas?

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #14

    @the-gipper said:

    Simply because they have vaginas?

    No ding dong.. They're unqualified.. How hard is that for your feeble old brain to absorb?

  • Nickers is an artifact

    Artifacts should be contained in the Poli board

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #15

    @mld-woody said:

    Nickers is an artifact

    Artifacts should be contained in the Poli board

    You should be drowned in a vat of Lake Erie Swill!

  • @ibleedbrown said:

    Links to your research?

    read the article on top

    IbleedbrownI Ibleedbrown wrote on last edited by Ibleedbrown
    #16

    @nickers said:

    read the article on top

    I did. Limited information there. 

    Indiana fastpitch players are no joke man. They take it seriously. My daughter’s hitting coach played wideout for Ball State, and his daughter played at Purdue. I have extensive experience watching my kid’s teams square off against Indy girls, and we were always on our toes against those ladies.

    Hoosiers go next level with sports. They literally build football fields and baseball diamonds in their back yards.

    And a female PI? Maybe someone like her coulda got the drop on a Johnny Manziel situation and avoided that whole fiasco. Gotta think outside the box here.

  • @the-gipper said:

    Simply because they have vaginas?

    No ding dong.. They're unqualified.. How hard is that for your feeble old brain to absorb?

    U Unsympathetic wrote on last edited by Unsympathetic
    #17

    @nickers said:

    They're unqualified

    Objectively false.  It's OK, though - your lack of skill at life was never in doubt.

    @orion said:

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female

    Because nobody in this world could ever possibly be as dumb as nickers in real life, right? Or maybe, just maybe.. discrimination is real life to some people and not the game you keep fervently wishing it was.

  • @unsympathetic said:

    Why, exactly, are YOU biased against them? 

    I'm not.  I'm fine with it in fact.  So long as they interviewed people and chose the best fit for the job(s).  Which I'm sure they did.

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female LGBTUVWXYZ.   Rest assured that there's married white males out there that were better qualified, that didn't get jobs because a certain applicant made their department / company look more diversified.....be it race, nationality, gender, whatever.   I bet we all know someone who's been through that.  I do.  Now, I'm not saying that blacks, women, gay, etc. aren't discriminated against....but the pendulum can swing quite far in either direction.

    U Unsympathetic wrote on last edited by Unsympathetic
    #18

    @orion said:

    ...but ya get extra credit

    Extra credit how, dipshit?  Show proof that it's tangible.

    @orion said:

     Rest assured that there's married white males out there that were better qualified

    I rest assured that you're deliberately lying.  Show proof that anyone both applied for the job and is better qualified.

    Until you find one, the number of people who are better qualified.. is 0.  The same as your IQ!  Isn't this fun?

    @orion said:

    I'm not saying that blacks, women, gay, etc. aren't discriminated against

    Yes, you are.  It's OK - you can lift your hood while you type! You're full of hate and you love it!  Clap your hands, Hercules!

    Stick to the white power political forum.  You'll find more politically correct virtue signaling conservatives regurgitating alt-right talking points there!

  • @nickers said:

    They're unqualified

    Objectively false.  It's OK, though - your lack of skill at life was never in doubt.

    @orion said:

    ...but ya get extra credit for diversity if it's a black asian female

    Because nobody in this world could ever possibly be as dumb as nickers in real life, right? Or maybe, just maybe.. discrimination is real life to some people and not the game you keep fervently wishing it was.

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #19

    @unsympathetic said:

    Objectively false.  It's OK, though - your lack of skill at life was never in doubt.

    Because nobody in this world could ever possibly be as dumb as nickers in real life, right? Or maybe, just maybe.. discrimination is real life to some people and not the game you keep fervently wishing it was.

    Tell me dexter... What qualifies them?... All you can do is sit like a dumb goon and imply people are dumb because it doesn't fit whatever narrative your trying to spin.... All I said was they're unqualified.. Ok.. one has limited exp with the bills. The other was a PI.. I just don't see how being a freakin PI translates to football acumen.. Until proven other wise.. They are 2 underlings with little or no exp...

  • @nickers said:

    read the article on top

    I did. Limited information there. 

    Indiana fastpitch players are no joke man. They take it seriously. My daughter’s hitting coach played wideout for Ball State, and his daughter played at Purdue. I have extensive experience watching my kid’s teams square off against Indy girls, and we were always on our toes against those ladies.

    Hoosiers go next level with sports. They literally build football fields and baseball diamonds in their back yards.

    And a female PI? Maybe someone like her coulda got the drop on a Johnny Manziel situation and avoided that whole fiasco. Gotta think outside the box here.

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by
    #20

    @ibleedbrown said:

    I did. Limited information there. 

    Indiana fastpitch players are no joke man. They take it seriously. My daughter’s hitting coach played wideout for Ball State, and his daughter played at Purdue. I have extensive experience watching my kid’s teams square off against Indy girls, and we were always on our toes against those ladies.

    Hoosiers go next level with sports. They literally build football fields and baseball diamonds in their back yards.

    And a female PI? Maybe someone like her coulda got the drop on a Johnny Manziel situation and avoided that whole fiasco. Gotta think outside the box here.

    Softball isnt football...