Yea, that is pretty shitty. If you aren't going to keep Herm cause you want Herm then fire him and let him go find some work elsewhere.

Let's look at some facts. I know facts don't play well on the board, but let's just try it for fun.

1. The Chiefs owe Herm 4 Million in '09.
2. A new HC will run you 2 to 4 Million in '09.
3. Everyone seems to think that Scott knows what he is doing as a GM.
4. Scott has Herm and his assistant coaches under contract.
5. Scott will not make a change JUST to make a change. HE will hire a guy he wants.
6. Why would Scott spend 6 to 8 million (Herm's money + the new guy's money) on the HC position next season for a guy he really didn't want? You will also have to figure in the expense of two coaching staffs (guy's under contract + new staff).

Conclusion: Don't fire the guy you have to pay anyway until you are sure (with signed contract) you have the guy you want. That is the way all good business are run.

You will lose more money in revenue if Herm is here, or pay both staffs and having a full stadium and parking lot...


Herm will cost the team more than just a salary next year...

Its not rocket science...

Then he needs to come out and say Herm is the man. It is that simple.

Hey, I'm not saying keep Herm. I'm just saying get the guy you want first...then fire Herm. Otherwise you are the Raiders. Fire a guy a then hire whoever is still available and is willing to coach your team.

Why? Why is coaching the last year of your contract with no extension in place yet considered to be "lame duck"? Who made that up?

Why is everyone so convinced that a coach won't play out the last year of his contract? That makes very little sense to me. This idea has been thrown around for a bit now, and it seems like everyone is taking this idea as accepted truth. But I don't see it that way. I don't see that it's so crazy for a coach to continue in the last year of his contract without everyone around him running for the hills. That's silly. It's not a requirement that you have to have an extension in place before you coach the last year of your current contract. Especially if you're a coach that has only won 6 games in the last 2 seasons.

Everyone has seemed to accept that he'll either be fired or get an extension. Either or. But I don't think that's the only possible outcome at all...

If Herm stays on board as the HC is anyone on here going to buy the address of:

www.firescottpioli.com

???????????????

Seems that is the feeling from some on here.

I never said Herm is the guy or that Scott wants Herm to be the guy, but Herm is the guy until you are assured you have the guy you want.

Good leaders do it on their terms not someone else's.

And what happens in the locker room when the team gets off to a slow start, 0-4? Do you think that a coach in the last year of his contract will be able to demand the respect of players who are inked long term?

Everyone will know the coach is going to get fired and things will quickly become a circus. Essentially, '09 would become (yet another) lost season.

Yea, we get that. Doesn't mean it isn't bullshit and doesn't mean it won't send a message to the team that Herm really doesn't have Piloi's confidence, now does it?

this

I didn't know you could do that!!

Has Pioli packed his bags for his Aruba vacation yet? Or will that come during the first week of free agency like Carl used to do?

What would you rather have Scott do? (A).Say "Herm is my guy" then fire him two weeks later or (B). Fire Herm then sign another second rate coach because you couldn't get the guy you wanted.

Keeping all employees on their toes and not showing your hand is the way all large companies work when upper management changes.

I think Herm and a lot of guys will be gone today. Scouts and personnel guys should be back from Mobile and hand in their reports, etc.