Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Does Dave have any say in the Coaching staff?


London Loves Luke

Recommended Posts

That is the way it should be. Even if I disagree with Rivera's assessment and decisions, you want to really fug up a franchise have the FO make assistant decisions

 

If Harbaugh could get released for not replacing greg roman. I don't see why Rivera can't get told to either replace shula and dorsey or get gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Harbaugh could get released for not replacing greg roman. I don't see why Rivera can't get told to either replace shula and dorsey or get gone.

Should be interesting to see how that works out for SF

I am more of a guy that thinks head coaches should control hiring firing assistants and GM hires or fires head coaches.

Nothing worse than FO meddling on coaching

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the way it should be. Even if I disagree with Rivera's assessment and decisions, you want to really fug up a franchise have the FO make assistant decisions

 

In certain cases when the assistant coaches is garbage, YES

 

Any good GM can see Shula & Rodgers are not the answer. Tell the HC you're not satisfied with what you're seeing. HC disagree, so you go to ownership. I really don't care for Rivera, he's not the answer either. I don't mind having another 49ers situation here in carolina like harbaugh and greg roman 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He technically has the power, but like most GMs he leaves the coaching hires and fires to the head coach's discretion.

 

My question would be how strongly he'd be willing to "suggest" some things.

Hope it's like...

DG: "Hey Ron, you let go of Shula or I let go of you"

RR: "Uh Shula can I speak to you for a moment?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Gettlemen is doing is allowing Ron to choose his staff, as he should, and allowing Ron to succeed or fail by his own choices. Sure Gettlemen will make suggestions when asked but he's smart to let Ron sink or swim by Rons own decisions. If Ron fails then Gettlemen will clean house after this season and start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...