NFL expected to pass a rule that prevents another Josh McDaniels situation

[RamFan503]

That, as @CGI_Ram pointed out would be unfair.

To level the playing field make it so nobody can interview until after the SB. If you have a coach interviewing during the playoffs it cuts into prep time and if he gets hired it could effect things during the playoffs. If everyone has to wait then it fair.

But the NFL is too freaking stupid to do that so they will do the dumbass thing.

Not sure how unfair. Just like getting a lower pick in the draft, a coach in the playoffs is a later pick up. The other aspect is that if a coach is good enough to be in the playoffs/SB, a team would/should be willing to wait for his services.

 

[RamFan503]

Isn't that also a problem, though? The coaches that make the playoffs would not only be at a disadvantage for the HC positions, but also assembling their staff.

Any team with a vacancy wants to get the new staff started as soon as possible. If they weren't hired until after the postseason, many teams will move on.

Not to mention, the playoff teams will have a better ratio retaining staff.

I think this change had to be made.

I see your point but a few weeks isn’t a major hinderance - especially if a team really wants that playoff caliber and experienced coach. I’d rather my team not have a coordinator they know is going away as they head into the playoffs. I would want as few outside distractions as possible. And if that means playoff teams are better able to retain their coaches, I’m ok with that. Even if it results in more dynasties.

 

[Faceplant]

They should name this, the McTwatwaffle rule......

 

[jrry32]

The rule is the right call. It should have happened years ago.

 

[Classic Rams]

I don't get this whole "hire them while they're in the playoffs with another team" nonsense. Just wait until the season is over, it should be tampering if they try to sway someone away while their team's season is still going. Just kill the distraction and wait until they're free.

 

[snackdaddy]

I don't see it as a distraction. Everyone knows a playoff team with a high scoring offense or low scoring defense is likely to lose their coordinator to a head coaching job. That is what most coordinators strive for.

On another note, I believe McDaniels career is going to take a nose dive when he becomes head coach. Its going to likely happen after Belichek and Brady retire. McDaniels has failed in his only two gigs outside of New England, the Broncos and the Rams. I don't think he's the coach people think he is. He's benefited from a Hall of Fame coach and Hall of Fame quarterback.

 

[Merlin]

What I don't like is the media tying this in with and making it all about McDaniels. It's been a problem for years. Teams have wanted it changed for years. Even if that whole thing with him hadn't happened, this would probably be happening and folks would see it for what it is.

Difference now is coaches can't be punished for their success resulting in deep playoff runs. That is good for the coaches, good for the teams, and good for the fans. It's win all around tbh.

 

[Selassie I]

They should name this, the McTwatwaffle rule......

He certainly needs to be given full credit for the rule. Reminds me of this.....

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

But why not do it? What he did affected a lot of people besides himself and it's a simple fix. Why not do it?

Because he is the only Dick to ever do it. It isn't necessary to make a new rule.

They should also make it illegal for a coach to ask to be released to join another team in the middle of the season.

Who did this?

I think they ought to just make it so you can't negotiate with coaches until the season is over for their team. Then open it up. I don't like them doing it in college either. Make them wait until their kids are done playing for the season - including bowl games.

College is different. Recruits should choose a school and not a coach, but they often choose a coach. The final commitment date is early February. Once they sign they would have to be ineligible for a year, if they transfer. It's better for new coaches to get in early to save as much of the incoming recruit class as possible. Having to start fresh with a recruiting class with less than a month before signing day is a huge handicap that no school wants.

Isn't that also a problem, though? The coaches that make the playoffs would not only be at a disadvantage for the HC positions, but also assembling their staff.

Any team with a vacancy wants to get the new staff started as soon as possible. If they weren't hired until after the postseason, many teams will move on.

Not to mention, the playoff teams will have a better ratio retaining staff.

I think this change had to be made.

Yes, every available coach should be an option.

He will be the next HC in NE I'm certain of that.

I would have preferred a suspension without pay because that would hurt him and the team. The team meddled after he accepted.

That, as @CGI_Ram pointed out would be unfair.

To level the playing field make it so nobody can interview until after the SB. If you have a coach interviewing during the playoffs it cuts into prep time and if he gets hired it could effect things during the playoffs. If everyone has to wait then it fair.

But the NFL is too freaking stupid to do that so they will do the dumbass thing.

It takes too much time to wait until after the Super bowl. GMs are often involved in coaching decisions. That hurts the draft and pro personnel side of things. New coaching staffs have to evaluate their entire team prior to free agency. There isn't enough time. Teams with new coaches get extra OTAs because they are behind they other teams.

Hiring a coach on a Super bowl team is a risk Owners and GMs are willing to take. Most of those coaches get their staff lined up and they start working on the roster before the Superbowl.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I agree with Dieterbrock. Their is no need for this rule. Just because McDaniel did it doesn't mean it will be a trend.

I think he and Kraft did the Colts a favor anyway.

 

[Loyal]

Because he is the only Dick to ever do it. It isn't necessary to make a new rule.

Untrue.

Josh McDaniels had accomplices in Bill Bellicheck and Bob Kraft, ie, the Patriots organization. So 1/32nd of the NFL did this. If 1/32nd of the total US population committed an act that the other 31/32nd of the population objected to, would a law/ordinance etc, be inappropriate? My answer would be that it's appropriate.

 

[RamsOfCastamere]

Who did this?/QUOTE]
McDaniels did that to us!!! After his shitty year being our OC, he asked to be released at the end of the season to join the Pats for the playoffs! That's such a sleazy move!

 

[dieterbrock]

Untrue.

Josh McDaniels had accomplices in Bill Bellicheck and Bob Kraft, ie, the Patriots organization. So 1/32nd of the NFL did this. If 1/32nd of the total US population committed an act that the other 31/32nd of the population objected to, would a law/ordinance etc, be inappropriate? My answer would be that it's appropriate.

Wrong. It’s one instance of this happening. How many coaching changes have happened in the last 20 years where this didn’t happen?? 100?
In history?

 

[dieterbrock]

What I don't like is the media tying this in with and making it all about McDaniels. It's been a problem for years. Teams have wanted it changed for years. Even if that whole thing with him hadn't happened, this would probably be happening and folks would see it for what it is.

Difference now is coaches can't be punished for their success resulting in deep playoff runs. That is good for the coaches, good for the teams, and good for the fans. It's win all around tbh.

How is it a problem for years? I don’t recall the nfl or the coaches complaining. The only complaining about the rule comes from fans imo.
The system works the way it is. Period. Many teams have waited and got their guy.
This quest for parity kills me.

 

[Merlin]

How is it a problem for years? I don’t recall the nfl or the coaches complaining. The only complaining about the rule comes from fans imo.
The system works the way it is. Period. Many teams have waited and got their guy.
This quest for parity kills me.

Teams have disliked waiting for a coach to "finish" his season for a long time Dieter. It isn't about parity either. It's just allowing a coach to make his next year plans and for teams to move on with their offseasons with the coaching decision in the rearview.

People gettin their panties in a bunch about this is entertaining, tbh. It's being argued over in regards to everything that it's not.

 

[Loyal]

Wrong. It’s one instance of this happening. How many coaching changes have happened in the last 20 years where this didn’t happen?? 100?
In history?

I am contesting that the idea that only one @sshat was involved. He was tempted and enabled by his then former employer. This rule comes down, if it does, because the other owners didn't like Kraft's role in this.
so...RIGHT

 

[kurtfaulk]

Teams have disliked waiting for a coach to "finish" his season for a long time Dieter. It isn't about parity either. It's just allowing a coach to make his next year plans and for teams to move on with their offseasons with the coaching decision in the rearview.

People gettin their panties in a bunch about this is entertaining, tbh. It's being argued over in regards to everything that it's not.

the team i follow in rugby league had their coach sign a contract with another team mid season. they were on top of the table at that stage and some betting agencies were paying out bets for them winning the minor premiership (finishing on top at the end of the regular season), that's how far ahead they were and how good they looked.

as soon as news hit that he wasn't gonna be there after that season the team tanked. didn't win a game for 8 weeks. they were so far ahead of the pack that the losing streak didn't stop them from making the play offs and they just scraped into the 8.

you know what this guy did during the week of the playoff game? he went to his new team to start organising for the next season. the week of the playoff game the cocksucker. naturally the team lost the playoff game.

it's a bad idea.

.

 

[wolfdogg]

All I ask is that the league calls it the mcdouche rule.

 

[dieterbrock]

Teams have disliked waiting for a coach to "finish" his season for a long time Dieter. It isn't about parity either. It's just allowing a coach to make his next year plans and for teams to move on with their offseasons with the coaching decision in the rearview.

People gettin their panties in a bunch about this is entertaining, tbh. It's being argued over in regards to everything that it's not.

What teams?
What team ever complained about it?

 

[dieterbrock]

I am contesting that the idea that only one @sshat was involved. He was tempted and enabled by his then former employer. This rule comes down, if it does, because the other owners didn't like Kraft's role in this.
so...RIGHT

You think Kraft is the first owner to offer a coach a sweeter deal to stay?
Good grief. Putting blame on Kraft is pathetic. McDaniels is a prick and weaseled out on a commitment. Period.
This is a single occurrence vs an nfl history of hundreds of coaching changes