I was reading someone's post about Marty in San Diego being derisively referred to as a lame duck coach. Why is it taboo to *gasp* let a coach enter the final year of his contract in the NFL. It makes sense to me, otherwise whenever you fire a coach you're paying him to not coach for you. Other sports don't have this issue. Baseball and basketball coaches regularly coach in the final year of a contract and no one raises an eyebrow. Coaches will coach through their final year and then the team will negotiate whether or not they want the coach back. Isn't Torre entering the final year of his deal? A little while ago I heard some mediot say, talking about the NFL, "there is no reason to let a coach enter the final year of his contract, you either extend him or fire him." If you ask me there are good reasons. Maybe you want to see more before you decide. You might want to see if he pushes a little harder in a contract year. It could be that you don't want to fire him, paying him to not coach while paying someone else to coach. What if the team decides they have one more year left in a run before they have to rebuild so they figure they'll keep the old coach around for that one last year? Is it because NFL coaches are so important? If so, wouldn't the same hysteria surround NBA coaches in their last year? Is it because the fans and media are so enamored with NFL coaches, moreso than in other sports? Probably, that's what I'm going with. Bill Simmons wrote an article recently about NFL coaches and I agreed with the sentiment that we generally idolize them and raise them to role-model and father-figure status. Any other thoughs on this?