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!

     

Why keep Evero for this?


electro's horse
 Share

Recommended Posts

Surely Tepper, Morgan and co had to have an idea where this free agency was going to go. 

Why in the world would Tepper bring back Evero knowing the defense was going to be gutted? Why not tell him the situation and let him and his staff walk to a better situation?

Strikes me as almost sadism from Tepper. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh....this isn't the personnel he's going to be starting the defense with.

Silly to act like it. Evero wants to show his worth and why he should have a HC job? Help rebuild it and take what he gets heading into the season and make it respectable. Prove you are the guy that can walk into any tough situation and make it work.

 

  • Pie 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evero was able to scheme around his players’ strengths last year and minimize their weaknesses to field a good defense. Having good players help, but I saw that he was able to make things work with what he has. Thats good coaching. He’s a good coach. 

  • Pie 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you elucidated exactly why he's still here. Tepper views Evero as an asset, a coach that can get average level play out of below average talent. (now whether that happens remains to be seen, I don't think anyone could produce a pass rush with our current roster)

I don't think Tepper gives a fug about Evero's feelings/future job prospects.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a bad org continues just to fly by their seat of their pants.   Tepper and Morgan where both part of orchestrating 2023.  Which had no actual vision.  Just a bunch of random parts and people forced together. 

when Evero agreed to stay, they were still negotiating trying to keep Burns.  I do not buy Evero was told they were going to purge the D of the talent they did and he opted to remain here.  He could of got a gig with a team that wasn't the worst professional team in all of sports.   He was able to salvage a respectable season last year.  And his personal resume matters given what he seeks to do in the near future. 

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

 

when Evero agreed to stay, they were still negotiating trying to keep Burns.  I do not buy Evero was told they were going to purge the D of the talent they did and he opted to remain here.  

 

No chance.  I think it's pretty clear they have been engaging in trade talks for a while.  Evero isn't naive.

They didn't keep their DC in the dark on their plans.  It's a collaborative effort on an NFL team.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, electro's horse said:

i saw that tweet, and I'm not sure I buy that. 

He had plenty of success in Evero's scheme. 

He wants to play on the edge like Parsons.  Not be an off the ball LB.    I see no reason for a Washington reporter to play Panthers PR.

  • Pie 2
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

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...