Fisher & Williams ARE going to be available... [Archive]

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 10:50 PM

According to Athan.....:shrug:

http://mb27.scout.com/fchiefsinsiderfrm1.showMessage?topicID=7732.topic

Sunday Night Coaching Update
CHIEFS FINAL FOUR!!!

1. Herman Edwards - He and his agent will meet with Jets owner Woody Johnson and GM Terry Bradway tomorrow to discuss his future. From what I've gathered from talking to some folks who cover the Jets, the sense is that New York WILL NOT give him a contract extension. They could grant him his release and thus the Chiefs would have to compensate the Jets with a draft pick or two. If that happens, then KC will need to wrap this up right away as plenty of other NFL teams will want to talk to him. Edwards is no dummy and he'll want to get paid top dollar. He's currently one of the lowest paid coaches in the NFL. KC might have to outbid several other suitors to land Edwards. His relationship with Vermeil and Peterson is great but the bottom line could boil down to compensation.

2. Jeff Fisher - Reports tonight indicate that he'll be let out of his contract at Tennessee tomorrow. But THOSE are uncomfirmed reports. Fisher if he's hired would likely keep Cunningham as DC. That could be a problem for the Chiefs. KC would be a perfect fit for Fisher but the Jets would love to snag him if Edwards leaves.

3. Butch Davis - His name has gained steam the last 12 hours from what I've been told. The Chiefs look at what he did at Miami and not at Cleveland as the measuring stick. He was at training camp in River Falls this past summer. Not sure the reason he's so high on the list but the Chiefs like his defensive mind. If he comes aboard I would NOT be shocked if Terry Shea is promoted to OC.

4. Gregg Williams - Met with team owner Daniel Snyder and HC Joe Gibbs to discuss his future. They will support his decision to leave the Redskins but won't grant permission to take any assistant coaches with him if he leaves. He is the top choice of the St. Louis Rams but they can't do a face to face interview with him until after the Redskins lose in the playoffs. Forget those reports that Snyder will match any HC offer for Williams. That's not going to happen...

007

01-01-2006, 10:52 PM

swap 1 and 2.

Brock

01-01-2006, 10:53 PM

DRAFT PICK CANNOT BE USED TO COMPENSATE TEAMS FOR HEAD COACHING HIRES. CIRCA 2 YEARS AGO.

Brock

01-01-2006, 10:53 PM

God, Athan is a moron.

Imon Yourside

01-01-2006, 10:54 PM

Oh man if Fisher is let go and Carl doesn't pick him up, CP is in need of a lobotomy.

ChiefsCountry

01-01-2006, 10:54 PM

Jeff Fisher would be nice, no to the other 3.

milkman

01-01-2006, 10:55 PM

Let's see, it's Nick Atahn.

WoooHooo, Edwards is staying in NY!!!!!

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 10:56 PM

DRAFT PICK CANNOT BE USED TO COMPENSATE TEAMS FOR HEAD COACHING HIRES. CIRCA 2 YEARS AGO.

Athan maintains teams can't trade picks for a coach; he says compensating for a coach under contract, who leaves, is different....

I'm not so sure he has that right, but there is a difference between the two circumstances I suppose. Means our deal for Vermeil would be fine; but the Patriot-Jet and Raider-Bucs deals involving Gruden & Parcels would NOT be. :shrug:

milkman

01-01-2006, 10:56 PM

DRAFT PICK CANNOT BE USED TO COMPENSATE TEAMS FOR HEAD COACHING HIRES. CIRCA 2 YEARS AGO.

Wait!

Are you trying to say that Athan is clueless!

STOP THE PRESSES!

Hammock Parties

01-01-2006, 10:57 PM

DRAFT PICK CANNOT BE USED TO COMPENSATE TEAMS FOR HEAD COACHING HIRES. CIRCA 2 YEARS AGO.

Yeah I can't believe Athan published that.

Rausch

01-01-2006, 10:57 PM

007

01-01-2006, 10:58 PM

You were warned...

Yep, it has Carl Peterson written all over it. Time to give away some draft picks.:banghead:

Rausch

01-01-2006, 10:58 PM

Yeah I can't believe Athan published that.

What part of him being ****ing clueless do you not understand?...

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 10:59 PM

Wait!

Are you trying to say that Athan is clueless!

STOP THE PRESSES!

This was his response, over there:

The Chiefs cannot compensate with draft picks per the "Gruden Rule" www.sptimes.com/2003/01/1...icks.shtml

If somehow they are required to, then Carl needs to look elsewhere or step down as GM before he creates a huge hole for the aging Chiefs.

That was a different scenario... The team can't trade Edwards for picks but NFL rules do allow for teams to be compensated if a coach is under contract and he signs with another team...

FringeNC

01-01-2006, 10:59 PM

WTF is Carl's fascination with Butch Davis?

Hammock Parties

01-01-2006, 10:59 PM

OK, Athan responds:

The team can't trade Edwards for picks but NFL rules do allow for teams to be compensated if a coach is under contract and he signs with another team...

Is this true?

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:00 PM

You were warned...

Read the thread, and my comments before flying off the handle Brad.....sheesh. :rolleyes:

007

01-01-2006, 11:01 PM

OK, Athan responds:

The team can't trade Edwards for picks but NFL rules do allow for teams to be compensated if a coach is under contract and he signs with another team...

Is this true?

Isn't that what we did to get Vermiel? I think we did that when Washington hired Schottenhiemer too.

Brock

01-01-2006, 11:01 PM

CASH COMPENSATION.

FringeNC

01-01-2006, 11:02 PM

OK, Athan responds:

The team can't trade Edwards for picks but NFL rules do allow for teams to be compensated if a coach is under contract and he signs with another team...

Is this true?

WTF? What does a trade involve? Someone a team has rights to. That is the definition of a trade, Athan. Releasing the rights in exchange for something.

Eleazar

01-01-2006, 11:02 PM

OK, Athan responds:

The team can't trade Edwards for picks but NFL rules do allow for teams to be compensated if a coach is under contract and he signs with another team...

Is this true?

I can't believe that he didn't know that already... he must not have a premium membership :p

Tribal Warfare

01-01-2006, 11:02 PM

WTF is Carl's fascination with Butch Davis?He

He gives good head

007

01-01-2006, 11:03 PM

He gives good head

Now thats just butch!!!

Imon Yourside

01-01-2006, 11:03 PM

CASH COMPENSATION.

Ok so that's out the window, my preference would read

1. Fisher
2. Saunders
3. Stoops
4. Me or another Chiefs fan with no real knowledge of the HC position.

Eleazar

01-01-2006, 11:04 PM

I for one hope that whatever rule this is regarding compensation means hiring edwards would cost us a hundred billion million trillion dollars.

milkman

01-01-2006, 11:04 PM

CASH COMPENSATION.

I don't give a shit about the cash, but Godammit, can't Carl find a HC candidate that doesn't require some kind of ****ing compensation?

Every other team in the league can, but Carl can't.

When it comes to coaches, Carl is the biggest dumbass in the NFL.

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:04 PM

CASH COMPENSATION.

I'm NOT saying Athan is correct....but there IS a distinction between teams agreeing to a trade involving draft picks, AND a coach under contract who leaves for another team, and is AWARDED picks as compensation for having lost the coach.

Athan is hanging his hat on that distinction; I'm not sure I agree....but I don't KNOW. :shrug:

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:05 PM

Brock

01-01-2006, 11:07 PM

Athan maintains teams can't trade picks for a coach; he says compensating for a coach under contract, who leaves, is different....

I'm not so sure he has that right, but there is a difference between the two circumstances I suppose. Means our deal for Vermeil would be fine; but the Patriot-Jet and Raider-Bucs deals involving Gruden & Parcels would NOT be. :shrug:

DRAFT PICK CANNOT BE USED TO COMPENSATE TEAMS FOR HEAD COACHING HIRES. CIRCA 2 YEARS AGO.

007

01-01-2006, 11:07 PM

siberian khatru

01-01-2006, 11:08 PM

I'm NOT saying Athan is correct....but there IS a distinction between teams agreeing to a trade involving draft picks, AND a coach under contract who leaves for another team, and is AWARDED picks as compensation for having lost the coach.

What's the difference?

Unless you mean compensation for tampering.

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:08 PM

IF HE IS RELEASED HE CAN'T BE UNDER A ****ING CONTRACT.

BEING RELEASED MEANS BEING RELEASED FROM YOUR CONTRACT!

Athan is ****ing clueless.

"If the Jets release Herm from his contract the Chiefs will then give compensation for signing a coach under contract."

Does he write this shit on crack?

I agree that your interpretation makes sense; it's what I thought....but I'm not lawyer.

Here's a link to the Gruden-Rule story:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/17/Bucs/NFL_nixes_draft_picks.shtml

My quick read of that, leaves a little wiggle room in the interpretation of the new policy...

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:10 PM

What's the difference?

Unless you mean compensation for tampering.

I'm no lawyer; I don't know....I find it a stupid loophole, and a worthless policy, if it is as Athan is saying though--that's for sure. :shake:

Brock

01-01-2006, 11:11 PM

I agree that your interpretation makes sense; it's what I thought....but I'm not lawyer.

Here's a link to the Gruden-Rule story:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/17/Bucs/NFL_nixes_draft_picks.shtml

My quick read of that, leaves a little wiggle room in the interpretation of the new policy...

Give it up. Athan is a moron. Herman Edwards can be bought from the Jets, but not for draft picks.

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:13 PM

I agree that your interpretation makes sense; it's what I thought....but I'm not lawyer.

Here's a link to the Gruden-Rule story:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/17/Bucs/NFL_nixes_draft_picks.shtml

My quick read of that, leaves a little wiggle room in the interpretation of the new policy...

No wiggle room.

DRAFT PICS CAN NOT BE TRADED OR AWARDED FOR A COACH AS COMPENSATION.

Period.

Game over.

End of ****ing story.

Draft picks are no longer part of signing a coach.

siberian khatru

01-01-2006, 11:13 PM

I'm just gonna have to wait for Phobia to come in here and defend Nick.

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:14 PM

DRAFT PICK CANNOT BE USED TO COMPENSATE TEAMS FOR HEAD COACHING HIRES. CIRCA 2 YEARS AGO.

That is my understanding as well. However, there IS difference between a trade between two teams, and the League compensating a team for losing a coach who breaks his contract by signing with another team. It's a small difference in my mind too, and it seems wrong either way. I'm just not sure though....

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:16 PM

No wiggle room.

DRAFT PICS CAN NOT BE TRADED OR AWARDED FOR A COACH AS COMPENSATION.

Period.

Game over.

End of ****ing story.

Draft picks are no longer part of signing a coach.

LINK?

I understand they can't be TRADED; but where is the language forbidding the AWARDING....I've been searching the NFL site and can't find it....

ANYONE? :hmmm:

Brock

01-01-2006, 11:18 PM

That is my understanding as well. However, there IS difference between a trade between two teams, and the League compensating a team for losing a coach who breaks his contract by signing with another team. It's a small difference in my mind too, and it seems wrong either way. I'm just not sure though....

There is no difference. The league has banned draft picks as compensation for coaching hires. It was ****ing up the draft. The Chiefs cannot and will not give draft picks as compensation. Period.

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:19 PM

There is no difference. The league has banned draft picks as compensation for coaching hires. It was ****ing up the draft. The Chiefs cannot and will not give draft picks as compensation. Period.

Have you found a link to the language of the NFL's policy, by chance? I haven't yet.....

Brock

01-01-2006, 11:20 PM

Have you found a link to the language of the NFL's policy, by chance? I haven't yet.....

Has Mr. Athan provided a ****ing link?

He is the original missing ****ing link.

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:22 PM

LINK?

I understand they can't be TRADED; but where is the language forbidding the AWARDING....

If you are AWARDED a pick, or a settlement, or a ****ing pony and baboon, IT IS COMPENSATION...

Eleazar

01-01-2006, 11:22 PM

NFL nixes draft picks for coaches

Teams no longer can give up picks for compensation, like the Bucs did for Gruden.

By RICK STROUD, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published January 17, 2003

TAMPA -- Jon Gruden led the Bucs to a franchise-record 12 victories, a division title and a berth in Sunday's NFC Championship Game against the Eagles. You would have to agree the trade Tampa Bay made with the Raiders for the rights to Gruden is an unqualified success.

Now such a deal is against league rules.

The league Thursday banned the type of trade that enabled the Bucs to sign Gruden. The new policy was announced in a memo to all 32 teams by commissioner Paul Tagliabue, league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

Tagliabue acted after the competition committee concluded that such coach-for-picks trades might be undermining the purpose of the draft.

The co-chairman of the competition committee is Bucs general manager Rich McKay, whose team has reaped the benefits of such a trade.

The Bucs ended a 36-day coaching search by trading two first-round picks, two second-round picks and $8-million to the Raiders for the rights to Gruden, who had a year left on his contract.

Three weeks ago, the Bucs attempted to receive compensation from the Cowboys for the rights to hire Bill Parcells, revealing the two-time Super Bowl-winning coach had signed a four-year contract to coach Tampa Bay a year ago.

But the contract never was submitted to the league office for approval and Tagliabue ruled no compensation was owed.

McKay declined comment Thursday.

The league's owners can decide whether to restore the right to trade draft picks for coaches at their annual meeting March 22-26 in Phoenix.

The league's new policy is not restricted to head coaches. It prevents draft picks from being used to sign anyone under contract with another team, including assistants, front-office personnel or scouts.

Gruden is the latest success story for teams that have been bold enough to package draft picks to hire coaches under contract with other teams.

In 1997, the Jets sent draft picks to New England to acquire the rights to Parcells. Two years later, Parcells led the Jets to the AFC Championship Game.

In 2000, the Patriots sent draft picks to the Jets to hire coach Bill Belichick, who was under contract. Last season, Belichick led New England to the Super Bowl XXXVI title.

This is not the first time the competition committee recommended the league reconsider its policy of swapping picks for coaches. Three years ago it presented its concerns to ownership about teams attempting to receive compensation for assistants.

After firing Tony Dungy and having Parcells renege on a deal to coach Tampa Bay and remain retired, Bucs owners targeted coaches under contract.

First, they offered the 49ers a package of undisclosed draft picks for the rights to Steve Mariucci, who ultimately walked away from an offer to become coach and general manager.

That prompted Bucs vice presidents Joel and Bryan Glazer to call Raiders general partner Al Davis and offer a king's ransom of top picks for the rights to Gruden.

Both teams benefited. The Raiders host Tennessee in the AFC Championship Game while the Bucs travel to Philadelphia for the NFC title game.

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:23 PM

Has Mr. Athan provided a ****ing link?

He is the original missing ****ing link.

Must spread mah' sizzle before I can send more your way...

keg in kc

01-01-2006, 11:23 PM

Edwards AND Fisher?!?!

No f*cking way!!! How could we BE so lucky?!?!

Maybe the 'gers will fire Martyocre and we can bring him here, too!

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:26 PM

Edwards AND Fisher?!?!

No f*cking way!!! How could we BE so lucky?!?!

Maybe the 'gers will fire Martyocre and we can bring him here, too!

Perhaps we could trade our 1st round pick to God for Hank Stram...

FringeNC

01-01-2006, 11:27 PM

Edwards AND Fisher?!?!

No f*cking way!!! How could we BE so lucky?!?!

Maybe the 'gers will fire Martyocre and we can bring him here, too!

I agree. Neither Edwards or Fisher excites me. Fisher is supposed to be this D genius, but when is the last time Tennessee had a good D?

keg in kc

01-01-2006, 11:27 PM

Perhaps we could trade our 1st round pick to God for Hank Stram...You still believe in God after 10-6 and no playoffs?

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:28 PM

Perhaps we could trade our 1st round pick to God for Hank Stram...

Have you found a link to back up your certainty about this....because I haven't.

I've said, I suspect you are right; but where is the proof that makes you so SURE? :shrug:

007

01-01-2006, 11:29 PM

Have you found a link to back up your certainty about this....because I haven't.

I've said, I suspect you are right; but where is the proof that makes you so SURE? :shrug:

What? Proof that you can give a first round pick to God for Hank Stramm?:)

KCJake

01-01-2006, 11:30 PM

According to Athan.....:shrug:

http://mb27.scout.com/fchiefsinsiderfrm1.showMessage?topicID=7732.topic

Sunday Night Coaching Update
CHIEFS FINAL FOUR!!!

Fisher if he's hired would likely keep Cunningham as DC. That could be a problem for the Chiefs.
I don't understand this statement??? Why would this be a problem?

jAZ

01-01-2006, 11:31 PM

Jeff Fisher is far and away my #1 choice. If he becomes available or can be made to be available with compensating picks, he's perfect.

He's as close as there is IMO to the perfect coach for this team as I can imagine.

He's as strong a football guy as Bill Cower, IMO.

I'll be shocked if he's actually available.

The Bad Guy

01-01-2006, 11:31 PM

I really, really can't believe anyone would bother reading that guy's shit.

How can you claim to be a journalist and NOT know facts.

Fact is you can't trade picks for a coach, which Rausch and Brock have pointed out. This guy tries to spin and lie to make his statement true, but it never can be.

Anyone who reads his shit should immediately get their eyes cleaned.

Logical

01-01-2006, 11:31 PM

OK, Athan responds:

The team can't trade Edwards for picks but NFL rules do allow for teams to be compensated if a coach is under contract and he signs with another team...

Is this true?It is true that the league can award draft picks as compensation for hiring a Head Coach under contract, teams can no longer trade draft picks for coaches. Let's just hope this does not get proven.

007

01-01-2006, 11:32 PM

I'll be shocked if Carl is smart enough to actually get him here.

Brock

01-01-2006, 11:33 PM

Brock

01-01-2006, 11:35 PM

It is true that the league can award draft picks as compensation for hiring a Head Coach under contract, teams can no longer trade draft picks for coaches. Let's just hope this does not get proven.

No, it isn't true. That is over, as of 2 years ago.

For the third time:

DRAFT PICK CANNOT BE USED TO COMPENSATE TEAMS FOR COACHING HIRES. CASH ONLY. OTHERWISE THE COACH CANNOT BE HIRED. PERIOD.

keg in kc

01-01-2006, 11:35 PM

I'm really starting to hate that mother****er.I tried thinking of something witty to say there, but I got nothing.

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:35 PM

It is true that the league can award draft picks as compensation for hiring a Head Coach under contract, teams can no longer trade draft picks for coaches.

No, it's not.

Teams can be FINED picks, by the NFL, for tampering. Big difference...

Logical

01-01-2006, 11:36 PM

If you are AWARDED a pick, or a settlement, or a ****ing pony and baboon, IT IS COMPENSATION...There is a difference Brad, one is initiated by the two teams, the other is the league penalizing a team for hiring a coach under contract.

Logical

01-01-2006, 11:37 PM

No, it's not.

Teams can be FINED picks, by the NFL, for tampering. Big difference...No such rule Brad. The league can award picks to any team as a penalty, they could also award monetary damages.

jAZ

01-01-2006, 11:38 PM

This is the closest thing I've found to an outside source on this Fisher thing...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/01/SPG3GGFVPL1.DTL
-- Tennessee: Jeff Fisher's job is believed to be safe, but Fisher, having already gone through one building project that resulted in a strong five-year run, might want to go someplace else rather than live with another rebuilding. The Titans, however, would be foolish to let him leave.

007

01-01-2006, 11:39 PM

Good grief! Lets just get Fisher in here and get ready for 2006.

Wile_E_Coyote

01-01-2006, 11:39 PM

Law is out, Edwards is his new crush

007

01-01-2006, 11:40 PM

Law is out, Edwards is his new crush

OH GAWD!!!!!!!!!!:banghead::banghead:

jAZ

01-01-2006, 11:40 PM

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:40 PM

There is a difference Brad, one is initiated by the two teams, the other is the league penalizing a team for hiring a coach under contract.

PICKS CAN NOT BE AWARDED AS COMPENSATION FOR A HIRING.

Unless it's a move up, a promotion, the coach stays. You CAN'T hire a coach under contract for a lateral move, only a promotion.

Teams can lose picks due to breaking NFL rules but those picks will NOT be given to another team.

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:41 PM

I'd trade our #1 pick next year for Jeff Fisher. In a heart beat.

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:43 PM

No such rule Brad. The league can award picks to any team as a penalty, they could also award monetary damages.

Has anyone been able to find the specific LANGUAGE of the new policy?

.....because.....I haven't.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:51 PM

Anyone care to make a bet?

Logical

01-01-2006, 11:54 PM

PICKS CAN NOT BE AWARDED AS COMPENSATION FOR A HIRING.

Unless it's a move up, a promotion, the coach stays. You CAN'T hire a coach under contract for a lateral move, only a promotion.

Teams can lose picks due to breaking NFL rules but those picks will NOT be given to another team.

I am pretty damn sure you are wrong, unless you can find a specific source. The policy change was on trading picks for other NFL clubs front office personnel. Not on how the NFL could penalize a team for tampering.

Mr. Kotter

01-01-2006, 11:57 PM

Phil responded to my question this way, at WI:

I'm confused by that as well so I asked Carl about it today. We should have some audio of it posted - it's towards the end of the Carl interview. His response confused me regarding the "Gruden rule" but his response about league mandated compensation (ie: tampering) cleared up a question I had. He indicated that Tags could and would take picks from teams in such a case. I understood his response to mean that teams couldn't voluntarily part with picks in a trade, however.

I'm not saying this is gospel, by any stretch--nor do I think Phil was. However, if CP is saying this....there must be some ambiguity....ambiguity that, knowing CP, he may be willing to "test".....:shrug:

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:58 PM

I am pretty damn sure you are wrong, unless you can find a specific source. The policy change was on trading picks for other NFL clubs front office personnel.

No, it was on COMPENSATING teams.

COMPENSATION, not trade.

The COMPENSATION rule bans trades, because they INCLUDE compensation of draft picks.

Rausch

01-01-2006, 11:59 PM

Phil responded to my question this way, at WI:

I'm not saying this is gospel, by any stretch--nor do I think Phil was. However, if CP is saying this....there must be some ambiguity....ambiguity that, knowing CP, he may be willing to "test".....:shrug:

And Phil just said EXACTLY what I've been saying.

TAMPERING is not trading.

TAMPERING is illegal.

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:04 AM

Imon Yourside

01-02-2006, 12:05 AM

This is the scenario I'm envisioning:

1. Edwards is scheduled to meet with the Jets tomorrow.
2. Apparently, his contract includes a option which Herm can exercise within 24-48 hours of the end of the season (read that in a couple of NY rags), to TERMINATE his last two years.
3. That would open up the door for Edwards to come to KC.
4. I suspect, at that point the Jets would petition the league filing a "tampering" charge to be arbitrated.
5. At some point, an arbitrater would determine, what, if anything the Chiefs would owe the Jets....for Edwards being persuaded to exercise his right to terminate his contract with them.

That sounds like vintage Carl to me--especially given his careful avoidance of any mention of Edwards in the past few days. :hmmm:

Thanks! now that i've witnessed my nightmare i don't have to sleep tonight.

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:06 AM

And Phil just said EXACTLY what I've been saying.

TAMPERING is not trading.

TAMPERING is illegal.

It may be illegal; but you don't think it's gonna happen? And you don't think Tags will award draft picks in the type of situation I just described....

In effect, teams targeting another teams coaches figure a way to sign the other teams coach....and an arbitrater awards draft picks as compensation.

I have a feelin' we may get a chance to see what Tags and the league thinks about it too.... :shake:

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:07 AM

This is the scenario I'm envisioning:

1. Edwards is scheduled to meet with the Jets tomorrow.
2. Apparently, his contract includes a option which Herm can exercise within 24-48 hours of the end of the season (read that in a couple of NY rags), to TERMINATE his last two years.
3. That would open up the door for Edwards to come to KC.
4. I suspect, at that point the Jets would petition the league filing a "tampering" charge to be arbitrated.
5. At some point, an arbitrater would determine, what, if anything the Chiefs would owe the Jets....for Edwards being persuaded to exercise his right to terminate his contract with them.

That sounds like vintage Carl to me--especially given his careful avoidance of any mention of Edwards in the past few days. :hmmm:

The Chiefs wouldn't OWE the Jets anything.

The Chiefs could get fined or lose draft picks.

Millen was fined 200,000 back when he tampered to hire Mari--....Steve.

Jones could have lost a draft pick or faced a fine for messing with TO while under contract.

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:07 AM

It may be illegal; but you don't think it's gonna happen? And you don't think Tags will award draft picks in the type of situation I just described....

The picks aren't awarded, you just lose them.

They're gone.

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:10 AM

Thanks! now that i've witnessed my nightmare i don't have to sleep tonight.

Frankly, I don't see Edwards leaving NY; at least not right now--not given his pretty clear language. I think Herm could be USING this situation to leverage the extension and raise he wants from the Jets. It would be a shrewd business move on his part....

Of course, the flirtation by the Chiefs and Herm's manuevering COULD just piss the Jets off enough, that they release him. THEN, after he signs with the Chiefs, the Jets go to the League with tampering charges.

Didn't we JUST go through this whole thing five years ago? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

cdcox

01-02-2006, 12:11 AM

If we lose draft choices for tampering trying to hire Herm FREAKING Edwards, someone needs to go Tanya Harding on Carl's knees, just to send a message.

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:11 AM

The picks aren't awarded, you just lose them.

They're gone.

So picks would be taken from the Chiefs, but NOT awarded to the Jets....as they were in the Vermiel from STL episode of five years ago?

Hammock Parties

01-02-2006, 12:11 AM

At this point I have resigned myself to the fact that Herm Edwards is our new coach.

I just hope he doesn't bring his stooges with him.

007

01-02-2006, 12:11 AM

Frankly, I don't see Edwards leaving NY; at least not right now--not given his pretty clear language. I think Herm could be USING this situation to leverage the extension and raise he wants from the Jets. It would be a shrewd business move on his part....

Of course, the flirtation by the Chiefs and Herm's manuevering COULD just piss the Jets off enough, that they release him. THEN, after he signs with the Chiefs, the Jets go to the League with tampering charges.

Didn't we JUST go through this whole thing five years ago? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Thats our Carl for ya.:shake:

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:12 AM

So picks would be taken from the Chiefs, but NOT awarded to the Jets....as they were in the Vermiel from STL episode of five years ago?

EXACTLY.

Just like when Denver got fined picks for cheating the cap. Those picks didn't go to anyone, they were just gone.

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:14 AM

No, it was on COMPENSATING teams.

COMPENSATION, not trade.

The COMPENSATION rule bans trades, because they INCLUDE compensation of draft picks.

Sorry Brad, but no:

Now such a deal is against league rules.

The league Thursday banned the type of trade that enabled the Bucs to sign Gruden. The new policy was announced in a memo to all 32 teams by ommissioner Paul Tagliabue, league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

Tagliabue acted after the competition committee concluded that such coach-for-picks trades might be undermining the purpose of the draft.

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:16 AM

EXACTLY.

Just like when Denver got fined picks for cheating the cap. Those picks didn't go to anyone, they were just gone.

Ah-ha. :hmmm:

I'd still like to see the language of the policy, and examine the precedents to determine what sort of "fine" we'd face.....

However, if Edwards has a legitimate "out" or "right to terminate" in his contract, as the NY papers seems to think....I don't know HOW they could possibly "fine" us....unless our FO has been really stupid in their contact and dealings with Edwards over the last couple of months. :hmmm:

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:16 AM

EXACTLY.

Just like when Denver got fined picks for cheating the cap. Those picks didn't go to anyone, they were just gone.

What the hell difference does that make to the Chiefs, we would still lose the picks. Why on earth would you find that acceptable? I could care less if the league takes them away or gives them to the Titans the result is the same to the Chiefs.

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:18 AM

At this point I have resigned myself to the fact that Herm Edwards is our new coach.

I just hope he doesn't bring his stooges with him.

You could be right.

Herm could also be using the Chiefs to get what he wants from NY.

Guess we'll find out over the next couple of days which it is....

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:18 AM

Ah-ha. :hmmm:

I'd still like to see the language of the policy, and examine the precedents to determine what sort of "fine" we'd face.....

However, if Edwards has a legitimate "out" or "right to terminate" in his contract, as the NY papers seems to think....I don't know HOW they could possibly "fine" us....unless our FO has been really stupid in their contact and dealings with Edwards over the last couple of months. :hmmm:

That might be different as supposedly Edwards has a 24 hour window to terminate his contract. In such a case as long as we waited until the window was open I do not believe they would consider it tampering.

tk13

01-02-2006, 12:19 AM

This should be a pretty fun month... people screaming and raving to get rid of our coach, happy that he's gone, then screaming and raving when we hire his replacement.

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:19 AM

What the hell difference does that make to the Chiefs, we would still lose the picks. Why on earth would you find that acceptable? I could care less if the league takes them away or gives them to the Titans the result is the same to the Chiefs.

The reason is the NFL does not want you trading picks for coaches.

If the pick went to the team as punishment the Chiefs would just say "Is Coach X worth a 1st? Well screw it then, it's the same as a trade. Let them fine us."

The pick CAN'T go to the team that gets screwed or, in essence, it's a trade.

LIke you said, we still get bent over, but that was never the point of the argument...

007

01-02-2006, 12:20 AM

That might be different as supposedly Edwards has a 24 hour window to terminate his contract. In such a case as long as we waited until the window was open I do not believe they would consider it tampering.

yeah, because we know there is no way Carl has done anything to interfere with the process in the last month. :shake:

It is the wrong coach anyway. Bring in Fisher.

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:21 AM

That might be different as supposedly Edwards has a 24 hour window to terminate his contract. In such a case as long as we waited until the window was open I do not believe they would consider it tampering.

As long as we have not yet talked to him at all, then wait until after he's released to interview...

RedDread

01-02-2006, 12:23 AM

FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER FISHER..........

*passes out*

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:25 AM

As long as we have not yet talked to him at all, then wait until after he's released to interview...

Some may feel the "rumors" or even DV's "Herm's been Coach of the Year" comment might suffice as proof of tampering. But you'd be hard pressed to convince me....

If we haven't spoken directly with him or his agent about the possibility, I don't see how they'd make a real case for tampering....hell, the papers float all kinds of BS rumors all the time.... :hmmm:

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:26 AM

Some may feel the "rumors" or even DV's "Herm's been Coach of the Year" comment might suffice as proof of tampering. But you'd be hard pressed to convince me....

If we haven't spoken directly with him or his agent about the possibility, I don't see how they'd make a real case for tampering....hell, the papers float all kinds of BS rumors all the time.... :hmmm:

EVERY team tampers damn near every year. That's just the way it is. Of course we are tampering.

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:26 AM

As long as we have not yet talked to him at all, then wait until after he's released to interview...That assumes he will be released, I sort of doubt that will occur. I am not sure what happens if he just outright quits. I think technically that tampering could still be charged.

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:27 AM

yeah, because we know there is no way Carl has done anything to interfere with the process in the last month. :shake:

It is the wrong coach anyway. Bring in Fisher.I am not particularly enamored of any former Marty coach, so I don't disagree.

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:28 AM

EVERY team tampers damn near every year. That's just the way it is. Of course we are tampering.

Even I admit that Taglibue seems to dislike Carl and would love to have another opportunity to stick it to him.

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:30 AM

This should be a pretty fun month... people screaming and raving to get rid of our coach, happy that he's gone, then screaming and raving when we hire his replacement.

Other than Gunther I am not sure I would scream over anyone we pick up. Gunther is the extreme, lord don't let that happen.

tk13

01-02-2006, 12:33 AM

Other than Gunther I am not sure I would scream over anyone we pick up. Gunther is the extreme, lord don't let that happen.
A lot of people will though. Especially if we hire Herm. It should be entertaining. But I like Herm. If you wanted DV gone you have no right to complain, because that means you actually voted for Carl Peterson to make a winning decision. I have no sympathy for those people.

007

01-02-2006, 12:35 AM

dirk digler

01-02-2006, 12:36 AM

This is the scenario I'm envisioning:

1. Edwards is scheduled to meet with the Jets tomorrow.
2. Apparently, his contract includes a option which Herm can exercise within 24-48 hours of the end of the season (read that in a couple of NY rags), to TERMINATE his last two years.
3. That would open up the door for Edwards to come to KC.
4. I suspect, at that point the Jets would petition the league filing a "tampering" charge to be arbitrated.
5. At some point, an arbitrater would determine, what, if anything the Chiefs would owe the Jets....for Edwards being persuaded to exercise his right to terminate his contract with them.

That sounds like vintage Carl to me--especially given his careful avoidance of any mention of Edwards in the past few days. :hmmm:

I believe #2 is incorrect. There is no out in his contract. Apparently tomorrow morning Herm is going to have a meeting to tell the owner he wants 4-5 yr extension on his contract. When the owner says no he will then say well I won't be happy here blah, blah, blah and the Jets will let Herm go.

No harm no foul. Then he is a FA agent and he can go to any team without any compensation.

jAZ

01-02-2006, 12:36 AM

Boom!
ROFL

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:36 AM

A lot of people will though. Especially if we hire Herm. It should be entertaining. But I like Herm. If you wanted DV gone you have no right to complain, because that means you voted for Carl Peterson to make a winning decision.I just believed that there was no hope for a championship with the soft teams that DV fields, at least not in the AFC with so many tough teams. You need one of those soft schedule like the Rams got in their championship season.

jAZ

01-02-2006, 12:38 AM

Logical

01-02-2006, 12:39 AM

I believe #2 is incorrect. There is no out in his contract. Apparently tomorrow morning Herm is going to have a meeting to tell the owner he wants 4-5 yr extension on his contract. When the owner says no he will then say well I won't be happy here blah, blah, blah and the Jets will let Herm go.

No harm no foul. Then he is a FA agent and he can go to any team without any compensation.Though what you suggest sounds safer, I have read the same thing Kotter has it has been on several major media outlets. I kind of hope he stays with the Jets. Course there are worse candidates than Herm.

Imon Yourside

01-02-2006, 12:39 AM

Apparently tomorrow morning Herm is going to have a meeting to tell the owner he wants 4-5 yr extension on his contract. When the owner says no he will then say well I won't be happy here blah, blah, blah and the Jets will let Herm go.

Which is about the equivelant of me going to my boss telling him I stole some money, nailed his wife and he was raising my son and demanding a raise.

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:41 AM

You still believe in God after 10-6 and no playoffs?

I prefer my opiates strong and reality numbing...

huskerdooz

01-02-2006, 12:43 AM

Which is about the equivelant of me going to my boss telling him I stole some money, nailed his wife and he was raising my son and demanding a raise.

You too, huh?

dirk digler

01-02-2006, 12:43 AM

Though what you suggest sounds safer, I have read the same thing Kotter has it has been on several major media outlets. I kind of hope he stays with the Jets. Course there are worse candidates than Herm.

Really? I haven't heard anything about Herm having an "out" in his contract except from WPI.

dirk digler

01-02-2006, 12:45 AM

Which is about the equivelant of me going to my boss telling him I stole some money, nailed his wife and he was raising my son and demanding a raise.

That is the way it works for NFL coaches. Teams can't franchise coaches like they can players. What is the point of keeping Herm for 1 more year and for him being a lame duck coach if he doesn't want to be there?

tk13

01-02-2006, 12:46 AM

I just believed that there was no hope for a championship with the soft teams that DV fields, at least not in the AFC with so many tough teams. You need one of those soft schedule like the Rams got in their championship season.
I don't think we were soft. I think that's one of the biggest lines of BS that runs through the board. Did we execute as well as we should've in the end? No way. I would not argue against that. But no team that runs for about 2 billion yards and completely dominates 4 different playoff caliber teams like we did down the stretch is "soft". The only game we looked soft was the New York game, and that was a 2nd straight road game on a short week. Other than that, we played 6 playoff caliber teams down the stretch and played right with them all, if not physically dominating them. We beat up New England, Denver, San Diego, and Cincinnati. We lost to Dallas, but that wasn't really a soft loss, getting beat on flea flickers and reverses isn't soft, if anything, it's the opposite of soft, because if we'd laid back and not been attacking and overaggressive, we wouldn't have been beaten on all that garbage. The Giants beat the crap out of us, but going into this final 6 game stretch there were people (including you) that thought we could go 0-6. We went 4-2 and were only beaten up physically one time, against 6 playoff-caliber teams. That's pretty damn tough. A soft team would've gotten their teeth kicked in, like Atlanta did.

Or heck, even the Chargers. They got their teeth kicked in by Miami, KC, and Denver in the last 4 games. Yet nobody would call them a softer team than us. And that's simply because of the personalities of the coaches. Funny how that works. They sure looked tougher than us when we kicked their ass last week.

Rausch

01-02-2006, 12:50 AM

Or heck, even the Chargers. They got their teeth kicked in by Miami, KC, and Denver in the last 4 games. Yet nobody would call them a softer team than us. And that's simply because of the personalities of the coaches. Funny how that works. They sure looked tougher than us when we kicked their ass last week.

"I ain't p*ssed off. I'm in f*cking wonderment. I'm waiting to be kept happy by another f*cking fairytale."
- Al Swearengen

grandllama

01-02-2006, 12:54 AM

"I ain't p*ssed off. I'm in f*cking wonderment. I'm waiting to be kept happy by another f*cking fairytale."
- Al Swearengen

Sucks that season three of Deadwood is all that I have to look forward to this spring.... cocksucker...

cdcox

01-02-2006, 12:56 AM

tk13 - maybe underachievers is a better word than soft. SD definitely under achieved worse than we did. But over the last 2 years, I think the Chiefs have been the greatest underachievers in football, at least until the Colts fold in the 1st round of the playoffs.

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 12:59 AM

I don't think we were soft. I think that's one of the biggest lines of BS that runs through the board....

nobody would call them a softer team than us. And that's simply because of the personalities of the coaches. Funny how that works. They sure looked tougher than us when we kicked their ass last week.

I understand your point, and do think the notion of us being soft has been exaggerated some....but face it, this team lacked discipline that a veteran team that's been together as long as they have, SHOULD have.

It got better in the second half of the season. But especially on the road, and earlier in the season.....penalties, turn-overs, poor tackling, and "under performing" players were a big reason we lost 2-3 games we shouldn't have. That's discipline and focus.

I understand what you are saying about the Giant loss, but we embarrassed ourselves; and there was NO excuse for the Buffalo and Dallas losses. Disciplined, focused teams who are playoff caliber WIN those games. And instead of watching the playoffs, we'd be hosting a game or two in the next couple of weeks. :banghead:

Logical

01-02-2006, 01:00 AM

I don't think we were soft. I think that's one of the biggest lines of BS that runs through the board. Did we execute as well as we should've in the end? No way. I would not argue against that. But no team that runs for about 2 billion yards and completely dominates 4 different playoff caliber teams like we did down the stretch is "soft". The only game we looked soft was the New York game, and that was a 2nd straight road game on a short week. Other than that, we played 6 playoff caliber teams down the stretch and played right with them all, if not physically dominating them. We beat up New England, Denver, San Diego, and Cincinnati. We lost to Dallas, but that wasn't really a soft loss, getting beat on flea flickers and reverses isn't soft, if anything, it's the opposite of soft, because if we'd laid back and not been attacking and overaggressive, we wouldn't have been beaten on all that garbage. The Giants beat the crap out of us, but going into this final 6 game stretch there were people (including you) that thought we could go 0-6. We went 4-2 and were only beaten up physically one time, against 6 playoff-caliber teams. That's pretty damn tough. A soft team would've gotten their teeth kicked in, like Atlanta did.

Or heck, even the Chargers. They got their teeth kicked in by Miami, KC, and Denver in the last 4 games. Yet nobody would call them a softer team than us. And that's simply because of the personalities of the coaches. Funny how that works. They sure looked tougher than us when we kicked their ass last week.There is a difference between physical toughness which we have in spades on offense but not on defense and mental toughness that allows you to win on the road and face the challenge of multiple road games. Take away the home field crutch and this team is just not the same.

Hammock Parties

01-02-2006, 01:06 AM

There is a difference between physical toughness which we have in spades on offense but not on defense and mental toughness that allows you to win on the road and face the challenge of multiple road games. Take away the home field crutch and this team is just not the same.

It seems to me that too few players have it. Maybe only Trent and possibly LJ.

Trent threw several great passes in the Giants game that were dropped....in almost every case the drive would have been extended.

Logical

01-02-2006, 01:09 AM

Hammock Parties

01-02-2006, 01:12 AM

Thanks for the support but you have confused me. Were you not saying in another thread that we did not need a WR?

No, we don't need a #1 WR. It would be an incredible luxury.

What we really needed in the Giants game was a defense that didn't allow three million yards rushing.

kregger

01-02-2006, 01:19 AM

DV's press conference after the game. "I told Carl after the Denver win."
Who in their right ****ing mind believes that Carl hasn't been tampering all over the NFL?

Mr. Kotter

01-02-2006, 07:28 AM

DV's press conference after the game. "I told Carl after the Denver win."
Who in their right ****ing mind believes that Carl hasn't been tampering all over the NFL?

I suspect there is a legal distinction between "tampering" and "networking".....

the Talking Can

01-02-2006, 07:36 AM

DV's press conference after the game. "I told Carl after the Denver win."
Who in their right ****ing mind believes that Carl hasn't been tampering all over the NFL?

every team tampers..just don't get caught "tampering"...

htismaqe

01-02-2006, 07:50 AM

It seems to me that too few players have it. Maybe only Trent and possibly LJ.

Trent threw several great passes in the Giants game that were dropped....in almost every case the drive would have been extended.

I even saw it in Trent from time to time.

When I think of this team as "soft" I think of a team that just doesn't feel that "we HAVE to win now" mentality.

A team that is the ultimate "oh well, we always have tomorrow...and our health" kind of team.

I think it's because of DV's attitude, he was very big on making the guys feel good about themselves. It was his comments about Eric Hicks that cemented it to me. Why would you want guys on your team that can handle being 1-3?

htismaqe

01-02-2006, 07:50 AM

What the hell difference does that make to the Chiefs, we would still lose the picks. Why on earth would you find that acceptable? I could care less if the league takes them away or gives them to the Titans the result is the same to the Chiefs.

It makes a difference because Athan is WRONG, just 3 sentences in.

It calls into question the validity of the ENTIRE article, because the guy screwed up a FACTUAL detail that could have been easily verified prior to publishing.

ILChief

01-02-2006, 08:31 AM

Just say NO................to Butch Davis.

I can live with the others

Hoover

01-02-2006, 08:42 AM

It makes a difference because Athan is WRONG, just 3 sentences in.

It calls into question the validity of the ENTIRE article, because the guy screwed up a FACTUAL detail that could have been easily verified prior to publishing.
I agree. Plus shouldn't this type to "Scoop" be pay for view on Warpaint? Thats also why I think that site sucks ass. you want Chiefs news, come to the planet. You want a press pass well....

chiefqueen

01-02-2006, 08:53 AM

DV's press conference after the game. "I told Carl after the Denver win."
Who in their right ****ing mind believes that Carl hasn't been tampering all over the NFL?

I wish DV did not say that.:banghead::cuss::banghead:

A little Chiefs' history refresher about CP. The only coach he hired "by the book" was Gunther. In 1989 he allegedly hired Marty b/f Gansz was fired & 5 years ago DV was signed to the dotted line before Gunther learned about his firing over the Internet.

siberian khatru

01-02-2006, 09:34 AM

I even saw it in Trent from time to time.

When I think of this team as "soft" I think of a team that just doesn't feel that "we HAVE to win now" mentality.

A team that is the ultimate "oh well, we always have tomorrow...and our health" kind of team.

I think it's because of DV's attitude, he was very big on making the guys feel good about themselves. It was his comments about Eric Hicks that cemented it to me. Why would you want guys on your team that can handle being 1-3?

That's my impression, too. tk13 thinks we're calling them pussies, and he sees a team that can be physically dominating and thinks we're nuts. But it's that "oh well, we always have tomorrow...and our health" attitude, that lack of urgency, that I think cripples them.

I watched highlights of the Chargers game @ Arrowhead and in the lockerroom afterward DV was choking up while complimenting his team for rising to the occasion when their backs were against the wall. And I was thinking, "Dammit, your backs were against the wall in Dallas and New York."

It's an exaggeration, but I think there's a nugget of truth in it: DV gave his players permission to lose. "Well, we lost in Denver, but we never win there, and it's against a Mike Shanahan team, and ..."

Ralphy Boy

01-02-2006, 09:59 AM

I believe #2 is incorrect. There is no out in his contract. Apparently tomorrow morning Herm is going to have a meeting to tell the owner he wants 4-5 yr extension on his contract. When the owner says no he will then say well I won't be happy here blah, blah, blah and the Jets will let Herm go.

No harm no foul. Then he is a FA agent and he can go to any team without any compensation.

So in other words, ANY coach who isn't happy with their existing contract will do the same thing, being that there are a ton of openings and they would likely get a pay raise.

On a side note, I can just see Mike Tice ending up in New Orleans, Billick in Minnesota, Saunders in St Louis, Williams in Houston & Martz or Haslett in KC.