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!

     

How long do you give this coaching staff?


Khaki Lackey

Recommended Posts

For the few of us that are optimistic about the new coaching staff. How long do you give them before you turn on them and start calling for their heads? (to the crybabies that wanted to keep Ron or hire some retread, stay the fug out of my thread. There are dozens of others you can spew out the same nonsense over and over.)

Me personally? If I were a coach, with a rebuild situation, I would want at least three years before I were judged. There are going to be some growing pains, no doubt. 
 

(Bonus content:) When Rivera get his one and only winning season in Washington in 2021, people on here will lose their minds. It will be amusing. Enjoy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As antsy as people can get, I’d give them 4 years at a minimum. It really does take time to build up a program from the start like is happening now with Tepper and Rhule changing a ton of things. As long as there is improvement and it isn’t disastrous, 4+ years makes sense. Say we go 1-15, 4-12, 7-9 in the first 3 years, you stick with it and year 4 better be playoffs. I don’t think we’re going to follow the trend of these McVay, Nagy, LaFleur types with a great first season or two and then drop off—and I don’t want that to happen. If it’s truly disastrous like 3 straight seasons with minimal improvement and 5 or less wins each year then yeah you probably move on, but gotta give it time and give them a shot. 3-4 years +

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

5 for SB.

I wouldn’t put any type of deadline on SB win. If we have consistent playoff appearances with some wins sprinkled in you don’t fire the coach just because no SB win within 5 years. What if the Chiefs had given up on Andy Reid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

These guys won't make it out of training next season before folks on here will be calling for their heads.

 True. I just wanted to see what most people‘s timeline looked like. I believe that perennial playoff team should be the goal. I think it will take a minimum of 3 years. After 5, the seat would start getting hot if I were Tepper. I would hate going through a 3 year rebuild just to end up with a Rivera-like halfway decent every other year type thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to say 3 years to show competence and ability to compete for a championship. At any point they start being ridiculous then that's when I would turn. From the little I have heard, they appear sound in knowledge and ability. They still have a hell of a learning curve ahead of them but I am hopeful on that they can pull this off. 

I'm already over the preachy talk from Rhule. I'm not looking forward to having to sit through more of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...