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!

     

NFL Coaching News


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/15/2022 at 2:58 PM, L-TownCat said:

So if no “rockstar” OC is acquired, will Tepper stay true to his word and cut ties with this idiot?

Even if Tepper follows through, bad move because by the time he can tell Rhule has failed to secure an OC that lives up to those expectations. It will be too late to fire Rhule because the best HC candidates will have found jobs. 
 

just fire him now and go after a new HC. If the new doesn’t work out, fire his ass too! Repeat until you get it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

After the terrible job that Mike Mccarthy did today, I think Jerry Jones needs to make a bold move and hire Matt Rhule away from us.  Come on Jerry, Matt Rhule plus Dak Prescott equals Super Bowl.  Just pull the trigger.  

I'm on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

 

I mean, I guess I understand, hard to fire a coach who got you to the playoffs.  But yesterday Jones is saying that the performance is unacceptable with the quality of the roster.  Now he's saying it's not on the coaches either.  So . . . . what?  Is he all in on blaming the refs?  I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BrianS said:

I mean, I guess I understand, hard to fire a coach who got you to the playoffs.  But yesterday Jones is saying that the performance is unacceptable with the quality of the roster.  Now he's saying it's not on the coaches either.  So . . . . what?  Is he all in on blaming the refs?  I don't get it.

Ironically, unless he's changed in the last hour or two, he was not blaming the refs at all.  His statements certainly sounded like a guy who felt his coaching staff was not up to the job. 

Of course, saying a coaching change is "not on the table" is not exactly a ringing endorsement for how he will feel next week, or on Wednesday, or at 2pm today.  My guess is he does nothing, but he probably has already turned up the heat a little.

The other problem he has is if he decided to can McCarthy, who does he get next?  I don't think he has won the NFL's Award for Best Workplace for a Head Coach in any of the recent years.....or ever.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maycock found out the hard way when another has all the power....I think he can do better, but those raiders drafts are some of the worse league wide.....and they had good numbers to use. He'll land on his feet, if not I do miss him on the NFL draft network

Edited by Basbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changes in Seattle, but not Carroll...

Fitterer and Morgan would know him, and given their shared position Morgan and he could be well acquainted.

He's never been anything but a linebacker coach or a DC though. We have those already and I don't expect Rhule to part with either.

Could always give him a special assistant role or something like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • 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...