2023 Random NFL Stuff Thread…

Status
Not open for further replies.
ravidubey said:
No way should you penalize what are already bad teams to be without a head coach for months while every other team has their coaches intact and are getting a head start on adjustments for the following season and fitting personnel profiles for the draft.
Click to expand...


It's not a penalty. The season isn't actually over yet while the playoffs are still going on. Is it a penalty that the teams still in the playoffs can't prep for the next season or draft yet? That's absurd.

I'll reiterate: the season isn't over yet. You don't (or shouldn't) have a right to another team's assistants during the season.

Also, you are exaggerating. It isn't normally "for months" that a team would be without a coach. It's basically about a month normally (early January when most teams fire their coach to early February when the super bowl ends).

The loser teams can wait till the season actually ends, just like everyone else. It's silly to suggest that you'd be penalizing eliminated teams by not allowing them to prep for the next season in January. They can focus on the draft and evaluating players (you don't need coaches for that), and save the next season for February, March and beyond, just like everyone else.

The only penalizing is happening now, where good teams with valuable assistants are essentially being punished by taking their coaches' focus away from playoff games for freaking job interviews. It's ridiculous that they ever allowed that.
 
I hear you.

It’s a month if you fired your coach at the end of the season, but you’re also saying you can’t hire a new coach even if you fired him in-season until February whatever-it-is.

That could be multiple months. Especially if you have a lame duck or interim coach on your team which happens to at least one team every year.

Anti-tampering rules already restrict interviews with NFL-employed persons until 3 days after their 18-week season ends or until the following Tuesday or Wednesday for assistant coaches of wildcard teams. Also, these interviews can’t be actually in-person until after the wildcard round is over.

So if you want it to be totally fair to every last possible assistant, eliminate all interviews of NFL personnel until after the Superbowl.

But it’s too extreme to tell NFL teams they can’t interview a Bill Parcells like Dallas did in-season 2002 and hire him Jan 2nd because it’s not fair to every random assistant that might make the Superbowl.
 
NoDak said:
Bill Parcells wasn’t employed by another team. I have no problem with interviewing someone in that situation.

Interviewing a coach that is still preparing for playoff games is what’s wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Extend to the Superbowl and beef up the tampering rules with harsher penalties. Don’t prevent teams from hiring outsiders and college coaches
 
Last edited:
ravidubey said:
Exactly. Extend to the Suoerbowl and beef up the tampering rules with harsher penalties. Don’t prevent teams from hiring outsiders and college coaches
Click to expand...


The problem with that is assistants on teams in the playoffs complain that they are missing out on opportunities because teams in a rush to hire a coach don't get to interview them. So I think a general moratorium is better, but I'd be ok with limiting it to coaches on playoff teams as a compromise.
 
Genghis Khan said:
The problem with that is assistants on teams in the playoffs complain that they are missing out on opportunities because teams in a rush to hire a coach don't get to interview them. So I think a general moratorium is better, but I'd be ok with limiting it to coaches on playoff teams as a compromise.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree no system will be perfect and allowing any hiring at all penalizes assistants who go furthest into the playoffs and may stand to cash in on the opportunity of a lifetime.

Still, if they are really good, teams should wait for them.

Holding off on interviewing all NFL employees until after the Superbowl at least limits the field of choices so most teams in the market for an HC will hold off on external choices anyway just for due-diligence if nothing else.

I think they limit it to the wildcard rounds currently as a compromise so at least some interviewing and hiring happens and teams can get on with their business instead of waiting three or four more weeks (yeah just wait until the 18 game+bye week seasons start).
 
ravidubey said:
I think they limit it to the wildcard rounds currently as a compromise
Click to expand...


I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty sure SF and Dallas both had assistants go on interviews prior to their division round game.
 
boozeman said:
Click to expand...

I thought they did away with that teams "belonging" to networks thing a couple of years ago. Because there have been a lot of pure AFC games on FOX and NFC games on CBS in recent years.
 
1bigfan13 said:
I thought they did away with that teams "belonging" to networks thing a couple of years ago. Because there have been a lot of pure AFC games on FOX and NFC games on CBS in recent years.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you still had network to conference ties. For some of those reasons, that is why you would set them get protective of their big matchups. Now it seems that things are going to be weird.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Yeah, I guess this is something the networks wanted? I like the way it was personally.
Click to expand...
I imagine Fox fought like Hell to prevent it and/or got serious compensation for every Dallas game they lost.

They were easing into it last couple of years with CBS getting some NFC East games to redistribute some of the high-ratings games.

Now it probably means the TV contracts have been normalized
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom