Odds are Herm still employed after today...

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

That's not my point.

It's not about playing hard. It's about listening to the coach and buying into what he's telling them to do.

If players think Herm is full of crap, and there's a faction of players on every team that thinks this about their coach, and they also think they're going to be with KC longer than he is, what do you think the situation will be like?

This has nothing to do with effort or being scared and everything to do with buying into the "plan" that any coach has to sell to his team.

That's different altogether. If players won't listen to the coach, then you get rid of those players. You don't set up coaching extensions to appease the players. If the players think Herm is full of crap, then they're going to think he's full of crap regardless of when his contract is up. They're not going to change their mind about him being full of crap just because he has a contract extension. Buying into the "plan" has no relevance to contract extensions beyond the current season. The locker room isn't going to fall apart because of possible uncertainty after the season is over. They play one game at a time, one season at a time. If players can't stay focused because they're worrying about next season after 4 games, then that's the player's problem.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

That's different altogether. If players won't listen to the coach, then you get rid of those players. You don't set up coaching extensions to appease the players. If the players think Herm is full of crap, then they're going to think he's full of crap regardless of when his contract is up. They're not going to change their mind about him being full of crap just because he has a contract extension. Buying into the "plan" has no relevance to contract extensions beyond the current season. The locker room isn't going to fall apart because of possible uncertainty after the season is over. They play one game at a time, one season at a time. If players can't stay focused because they're worrying about next season after 4 games, then that's the player's problem.

But where we're apparently disagreeing is that I think there would be A LOT of players no longer listening to the coach. Too many to simply get rid of.

The players aren't stupid. It's about accountability. If the writing is on the wall that Herm's going to get fired because things aren't going well (at whatever point that is, 0-4 was just a random number), players realize they aren't going to be accountable to him anymore. What he says and thinks won't matter.

IMO, what would happen next is that players would tune him out and start going about things their own way. The result would be a complete cluster****.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

But where we're apparently disagreeing is that I think there would be A LOT of players no longer listening to the coach. Too many to simply get rid of.

The players aren't stupid. It's about accountability. If the writing is on the wall that Herm's going to get fired because things aren't going well (at whatever point that is, 0-4 was just a random number), players realize they aren't going to be accountable to him anymore. What he says and thinks won't matter.

IMO, what would happen next is that players would tune him out and start going about things their own way. The result would be a complete cluster****.

And again, if that were to happen, that would happen regardless of the coach's contract. And the coach isn't going to get a contract extension simply to prevent the possibility of that happening. Which is the point of the whole "lame duck" discussion. If there are a lot of players no longer listening to the coach, then it should make Pioli's decision much easier. If there is, or will be, civil unrest in the locker room, then it's Pioli's job to see that and address that. We have to trust him to do so. But don't think that he's going to grant an extension out of fear that the players will rebel unless the coach gets an extension.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

And again, if that were to happen, that would happen regardless of the coach's contract. And the coach isn't going to get a contract extension simply to prevent the possibility of that happening. Which is the point of the whole "lame duck" discussion. If there are a lot of players no longer listening to the coach, then it should make Pioli's decision much easier. If there is, or will be, civil unrest in the locker room, then it's Pioli's job to see that and address that. We have to trust him to do so. But don't think that he's going to grant an extension out of fear that the players will rebel unless the coach gets an extension.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think the contract is very important in indicating to the players that this is someone you have to pay attention to because he's going to be around, suggesting that you can't outlast him.

It also is a sign of faith from the organization.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think the contract is very important in indicating to the players that this is someone you have to pay attention to because he's going to be around, suggesting that you can't outlast him.

It also is a sign of faith from the organization.

OK then. I just don't think that contract length is indication of anything these days. Most contracts these days never ever make it full term, so I don't see how you can put any importance in that whatsoever. And under contract or not, if you're not doing an acceptable job, you're still going to get fired. It's the same for coaches as it is for players. And the players can see that.

And speaking of "sign of faith from the organization", you're also ignoring the fact that by firing Edwards before his contract expires sends the message that "Yeah we gave you a 4 year contract, but we're firing you anyway after the 3rd year." In essence, we gave you a "sign of faith from the organization" in your 4 year contract, but now that you suck we're going back on that sign of faith. Does that still sound like the message you'd want to send?

Yeah we're giving the new coach a 5 year deal, and we feel that contract length is a good indicator of faith and commitment. Never mind that we just ignored that and fired the last guy....

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

And speaking of "sign of faith from the organization", you're also ignoring the fact that by firing Edwards before his contract expires sends the message that "Yeah we gave you a 4 year contract, but we're firing you anyway after the 3rd year." In essence, we gave you a "sign of faith from the organization" in your 4 year contract, but now that you suck we're going back on that sign of faith. Does that still sound like the message you'd want to send?

Yeah we're giving the new coach a 5 year deal, and we feel that contract length is a good indicator of faith and commitment. Never mind that we just ignored that and fired the last guy....

Accountability. You live up to your end, and we'll do the same. And this is generally the case with coaches' contracts.

Rooting out incompetence when it's identified isn't a negative message. Does this mean that coaches aren't unfairly treated in certain instances? Of course not. Look at Oakland.

Player contracts, however, are different story and are often a joke.

I think you're understating the importance of the business aspect of pro sports. It's common to see the guy with the big contract throw his weight around b/c he understands the organization's financial commitment in him and the sway that this holds.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Accountability. You live up to your end, and we'll do the same. And this is generally the case with coaches' contracts.

Rooting out incompetence when it's identified isn't a negative message. Does this mean that coaches aren't unfairly treated in certain instances? Of course not. Look at Oakland.

Player contracts, however, are different story and are often a joke.

I think you're understating the importance of the business aspect of pro sports. It's common to see the guy with the big contract throw his weight around b/c he understands the organization's financial commitment in him and the sway that this holds.

Yes. I agree completely about accountability.

But we've gotten away from the original argument though, which was the idea that they can't let Herm coach his last year because it would be "lame duck". I have absolutely no problem at all with firing Herm because of accountability. He deserves that. But it's not a situation where he's either fired or his contract is extended because of the "lame duck" last year of the contract. That was the point I was trying to make. And now I feel like I'm just being argumentative, so I'm going to stop here...

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

OK then. I just don't think that contract length is indication of anything these days. Most contracts these days never ever make it full term, so I don't see how you can put any importance in that whatsoever. And under contract or not, if you're not doing an acceptable job, you're still going to get fired. It's the same for coaches as it is for players. And the players can see that.

And speaking of "sign of faith from the organization", you're also ignoring the fact that by firing Edwards before his contract expires sends the message that "Yeah we gave you a 4 year contract, but we're firing you anyway after the 3rd year." In essence, we gave you a "sign of faith from the organization" in your 4 year contract, but now that you suck we're going back on that sign of faith. Does that still sound like the message you'd want to send?

Yeah we're giving the new coach a 5 year deal, and we feel that contract length is a good indicator of faith and commitment. Never mind that we just ignored that and fired the last guy....

Overlooking all this back and forth arguing is the reality of the situation: How many NFL coaches are allowed to coach in the last year of their contracts?

As Adam Schefter wrote last January: "Teams typically do not like coaches to head into a season as a lame duck; last season, the New York Giants handed a modest one-year extension to Tom Coughlin."

Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports, Dec. 25: "Mangini has one year left on his contract, making the team’s latest flop even more perplexing. If they go by the NFL textbook, they are in a “fold or raise” scenario. They don’t want a scenario where he’s in a lame-duck season, especially when the players are hearing the New York media and fan base calling for his head. Either they fire Mangini now and begin with a rebuild, or they extend his deal and hope he can repair the damage from a late-season slide."

Off the top of my head, I can't think of many, if any, coaches in recent years who entered the season in the last year of their contract (other than someone retiring, such as Holmgren). Maybe someone can come up with a few names that did, and I'll concede the point.

Sure, nothing prevents the Chiefs from keeping Herm on next year in his final year, or giving him a Coughlin-like one-year extension. But given the situation -- new GM, 6-26, massive rebuilding -- it just seems a perfect opportunity to cut your losses and start fresh, rather than keep around all the lingering questions and doubts.

[Zouk]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Off the top of my head, I can't think of many, if any, coaches in recent years who entered the season in the last year of their contract (other than someone retiring, such as Holmgren). Maybe someone can come up with a few names that did, and I'll concede the point.

The Bills have done it twice recently. Jauron started 2008 in the last year of his contract and then was extended mid-season after they started 4-0 and Gregg Williams did it a couple of years ago. He was actually never fired as head coach - his contract just expired.

It is very rare though.