Why the concept of the "lame duck coach" in the NFL?

[TomBrady'sGoat]

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?

 

[upstater1]

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?

Baseball has the same issue. It's because the players know they can tune the coach out and there won't be as harsh ramifications for doing so.

 

[Digger44]

IMO the organization knows Marty is gone next year. The extention offer was made (also declined by Marty) to keep players in check this coming season. One has to wonder if the will take a hard run at THE CHIN next year.

Lame Duck Example: 17 year old QB tells the coack to throw the challenge flag in one of the largest games in Charger history when there was clearly nothing to challenge. Marty doesnt think about it, he just does it. They lose a TO which could have been huge in the last FG attempt. Quack quack.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Baseball has the same issue. It's because the players know they can tune the coach out and there won't be as harsh ramifications for doing so.

you really think so? I don't think I have ever heard anyone refer to a baseball coach as a lame duck, and i have very rarely heard anyone take issue with a team letting their manager go into the final year of his deal.

besides, baseball coaches do almost nothing. they write up a lineup card and make pitching substitutions, once in awhile they call for a steal, intentional walk, or whatnot. Otherwise they sit there and chew sunflower seeds. baseball managers don't instruct, they supervise.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

IMO the organization knows Marty is gone next year. The extention offer was made (also declined by Marty) to keep players in check this coming season. One has to wonder if the will take a hard run at THE CHIN next year.

Lame Duck Example: 17 year old QB tells the coack to throw the challenge flag in one of the largest games in Charger history when there was clearly nothing to challenge. Marty doesnt think about it, he just does it. They lose a TO which could have been huge in the last FG attempt. Quack quack.

this isn't just about marty. i heard the same stuff about tom coughlin. you hear it every year in football, and you never hear it in other sports.

and there's a difference between lame duck and bad coach. the challenge was bad coaching/strategy.