Chiefs Odds are Herm still employed after today... - Page 5

**petegz28** · 01-23-2009, 08:48 AM

Seeing as Jack Hary says it was Shanahan, Mort said Herm would be gone by today, Collinsworth said it was Haley and Schefter said we had not spoke with Shanahan, Ari's realtor said it was Cowher and the latest Gailey story, I'd say....

Herm will still be here after today, contrary to all of the above. Hopefully Pioli will make me eat my words but all I have seen is all the "experts" don't have a ****ing clue.

**DeezNutz** · 01-23-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

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.

siberian khatru · 01-23-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

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.

Fish · 01-23-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

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...

Zouk · 01-23-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

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.

siberian khatru · 01-23-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zouk

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.

Thanks.

**DeezNutz** · 01-23-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Fish

And now I feel like I'm just being argumentative, so I'm going to stop here...

Nah. Just good back-and-forth exchange.

CoMoChief · 01-23-2009, 12:10 PM

Pioli down at the Sr bowl scouting kids is much better than Herm doing it anyways.

Remember how Herm can only watch 10min of video......then the bitch falls asleep.

blaise · 01-23-2009, 12:11 PM

I think the Bills extending Jauron like they did was a dumb move, by the way.

FringeNC · 01-23-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zouk

The Pioli factor points to Parcells and the Gailey factor points to Cowher. Yeah, I'd say those are blockbusters.

Those are possibilities, as are Shanahan and Haley. We can come up with explanations for why don't have a new coach yet. It's much harder to come up with explanations for why Herm hasn't been fired yet.

SenselessChiefsFan · 01-23-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't think Pioli worries about the good will and credibility he has with the fans. Winning or losing will dictate that. I'm sure he has a plan and he knows exactly what he wants. If Herm stays that means he didn't see a guy he thought would be good enough to give a contract to.
In any case, I really hope he doesn't give a flying rats ass what anyone here or any other message board think.

EXACTLY! The Pats made all kinds of unpopular moves and didn't care what the fans thought. Heck, even hiring Bill Belichick was unpopular at the time. That worked out okay.

It is funny to see how many people actually think the Chiefs care about what we think.

Zouk · 01-23-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Heck, even hiring Bill Belichick was unpopular at the time. That worked out okay.

So few people remember this. Belichick was at near-Herm levels of derision when he left the Browns. It softened somewhat after he had success with the Jets - but still the opinion of most fans and media was "great coordinator, terrible head coach". It was repeated ad nauseum as so much NFL conventional wisdom is.

When you read about Belichick the thing you find is that he didn't really change much from Cleveland to New York - it's just that the personnel got better.

Mojo Jojo · 01-23-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Pioli down at the Sr bowl scouting kids is much better than Herm doing it anyways.

Remember how Herm can only watch 10min of video......then the bitch falls asleep.

According to Gretz (take it for what it is worth) Pioli didn't go to the Sr. Bowl this week. To be honest I never saw any video or press pictures of Scott there this week. I've seen images of other teams coaches/front office staff. Parcells wasn't and still isn't a Sr. Bowl guy. He prefers game tape and individual workouts. I wonder if Pioli will be the same way?

Chiefnj2 · 01-23-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

EXACTLY! The Pats made all kinds of unpopular moves and didn't care what the fans thought. Heck, even hiring Bill Belichick was unpopular at the time. That worked out okay.

It is funny to see how many people actually think the Chiefs care about what we think.

You can make unpopular moves if you have a winning team. If you have a new/refurbished stadium that you want to fill up then public perception and reaction may be a factor they want to take into account.

RustShack · 01-23-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

You can make unpopular moves if you have a winning team. If you have a new/refurbished stadium that you want to fill up then public perception and reaction may be a factor they want to take into account.

They didn't have a winning team... just because you have one now doesn't mean you always have been one...

Mojo Jojo · 01-23-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

You can make unpopular moves if you have a winning team. If you have a new/refurbished stadium that you want to fill up then public perception and reaction may be a factor they want to take into account.

Didn't most people on this board bitch and bitch about Carl only making decisions in order to fill the stadium? It seems that posters are wanting Pioli to act more like Carl everyday.

The Patriots way is to do it your way on your schedule and everyone else, including the NFL office/fans/other teams, be damned. If you do your job right then everything else takes care of itself.

01-23-2009, 08:48 AM
petegz28 Supporter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Olathe, Ks Casino cash: $-1045873	Odds are Herm still employed after today... Seeing as Jack Hary says it was Shanahan, Mort said Herm would be gone by today, Collinsworth said it was Haley and Schefter said we had not spoke with Shanahan, Ari's realtor said it was Cowher and the latest Gailey story, I'd say.... Herm will still be here after today, contrary to all of the above. Hopefully Pioli will make me eat my words but all I have seen is all the "experts" don't have a ****ing clue.
Posts: 132,451

01-23-2009, 12:10 PM	#67
CoMoChief Mahomes Dynasty Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $7672254	Pioli down at the Sr bowl scouting kids is much better than Herm doing it anyways. Remember how Herm can only watch 10min of video......then the bitch falls asleep.
Posts: 39,245

01-23-2009, 12:11 PM	#68
blaise In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Plano, TX Casino cash: $9989900	I think the Bills extending Jauron like they did was a dumb move, by the way.
Posts: 22,189