NFL to review McDaniels situation in off season

[Deus Irae]

1) Against teams paying/compensating other teams who are out of the playoffs for their coaches who are still under contract.

What compensation did the Rams get from the Patriots?

 

[shmessy]

You are aware that the Broncos hired Mike Shanahan in season in 1989 after he was fired as head coach by the Raiders. Did things smell fishy then. Was it improper then? Or just now, when the Patriots do it?

My opinion: If you make it through to the END OF THE SEASON still under contract, you should not be able to artificially extend your season. Unless you are fired DURING the season, there should be no leapfrogging to another team's season.

Your Shanahan example is completely different from this. He was fired in the middle of the season.

It's simply my opinion, and I feel the league should address this for the future.

The Patriots did absolutely nothing wrong. It's not their responsibility to set the league's rules.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

My opinion: If you make it through to the END OF THE SEASON still under contract, you should not be able to artificially extend your season. Unless you are fired DURING the season, there should be no leapfrogging to another team's season.

Your Shanahan example is completely different from this. He was fired in the middle of the season.

It's simply my opinion, and I feel the league should address this for the future.

The Patriots did absolutely nothing wrong. It's not their responsibility to set the league's rules.

Yep, this is my thinking, too.

The Patriots didn't do anything wrong as there are no rules in place for this scenario. But now that it's on the radar, the League will have to look at leapfrogging and come up with a set of guidelines.

The League isn't ganging up on the Patriots, it's just that the Patriots exposed an opaque area that needs to be cleared up.

 

[Wolfpack]

How about they put a rule in saying that other teams and colleges can't go after a teams coaching staff while there still playing then. McDaniels wouldn't have been necessary if Penn State didn't poach the OC.

They used to have that rule but it is pretty unfair to assistants and coordinators who go deep in the playoffs. Basically, assistant coaches of teams who didn't make the playoffs had an unfair advantage.

Fact is there is no perfect system. No matter what they do, someone will always be whining and complaining.

 

[Wolfpack]

Well, well, well...

I get skewered on the other thread when I made the "irrational" argument that something smelled funny, but now I seem to be vindicated by the NFL front office.

I guarantee you that the NFL will clarify things by forbidding teams from hiring Offensive or Defensive Coordinators after either the trading deadline or the end of the season.

Whether or not there were any shenanigans involved in the hiring of McDaniels is irrelevant. It smells fishy, so now the NFL powers will have to weigh in.

I actually agree with those who think they should change the rule, but there is absolutely nothing fishy about what has happened thus far and none of the current rules have been violated.

Don't be so bitter just because the Patriots were the first team smart enough to think of doing such a thing.

 

[Wolfpack]

Look, in all seriousness, there's a lot less here than meets the eye.

However, just as politicians *claim* to take steps to avoid even the *appearance* of impropriety, the NFL needs to do the same thing with respect to the midseason or end-of-season hiring of coaches. Especially if that guy used to be the Head Coach of a team you're actually playing in the playoffs...or likely to play.

Who cares what the writers say? By all accounts, these guys are little more than clowns. In fact, I doubt many of them could compete heads up with Blinky the Clown so they became sports writers instead.

It's the appearance of impropriety that counts, not any real infraction. That's just the way it is.

Fortunately in this case there is absolutely zero evidence of impropriety. That Patriots violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the current rules. Anything else is just pre-emptive whining and excuse making by fans of a team who know they are going to lose.

 

[Wolfpack]

My opinion: If you make it through to the END OF THE SEASON still under contract, you should not be able to artificially extend your season. Unless you are fired DURING the season, there should be no leapfrogging to another team's season.

Your Shanahan example is completely different from this. He was fired in the middle of the season.

It's simply my opinion, and I feel the league should address this for the future.

The Patriots did absolutely nothing wrong. It's not their responsibility to set the league's rules.

I agree with everything written here. For now, nothing illegal or improper has occurred - but I do believe the league should (and will) change the rule. I expect there will be some sort of new rule that says any coach not on your "roster" by, say, December 1 cannot join your team until after the end of the season.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

And at the end of the day, this could end up benefiting the Broncos, too.

Maybe Joshy will be so tempted to prove how smart he is in today's game, he'll upset the chemistry that's already been good enough to take New England to a 13-3 record. At least that's my hope.

 

[The_Chuck_Rule]

What compensation did the Rams get from the Patriots?

The Superbowl walk through tapes, of course.

 

[shmessy]

And at the end of the day, this could end up benefiting the Broncos, too.

Maybe Joshy will be so tempted to prove how smart he is in today's game, he'll upset the chemistry that's already been good enough to take New England to a 13-3 record. At least that's my hope.

That and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are Denver's two main hopes tonight?

 

[Lurks_All_Day]

In this instance, McDaniels was not out of a job. St Louis "traded" him to the Pats for a sideways move for a job after his team's season to a team in an extended season.

Once again, the Patriots and Rams did NOTHING illegal.

I feel the NFL should, however, close that gap up for next year. That's my own opinion.

Maybe they should also question teams that pick up a replacement long-snapper in the post-season?
Just sayin'...

 

[shmessy]

Maybe they should also question teams that pick up a replacement long-snapper in the post-season?
Just sayin'...

Was Binn under contract to his team at the end of the season?

Try paying attention to the thread.

 

[Deus Irae]

Was Binn under contract to his team at the end of the season?

Try paying attention to the thread.

You may have missed my question earlier, so I'll ask it again. What compensation did the Rams get from the Patriots?

 

[Lurks_All_Day]

Was Binn under contract to his team at the end of the season?

Try paying attention to the thread.

Ouch.
Sorry, I forgot to enclose my previous post in 'lol, sarcasm' tags.
Mea culpa.
:bricks:

 

[Wolfpack]

Maybe they should also question teams that pick up a replacement long-snapper in the post-season?
Just sayin'...

Well, they already have rules in place to address that situation. Don't get me wrong, UFA's are fair game. But if the Colts cut Peyton Manning this past week, he couldn't just be picked up and playing for the Texans tomorrow.

 

[Armchair Bronco]

Maybe they should also question teams that pick up a replacement long-snapper in the post-season?
Just sayin'...

This is not the same thing AT ALL. A *player*, especially one from a team that's been eliminated from the playoffs, can bring a skillset to the mix, but not insider information.

A coach, on the other hand, can.

 

[Wolfpack]

This is not the same thing AT ALL. A *player*, especially one from a team that's been eliminated from the playoffs, can bring a skillset to the mix, but not insider information.

Translation: This is not the same thing AT ALL because in one case the Broncos did it so it's ok but in the other case the Patriots did it so it's not ok.

Also, don't be ridiculous. A player could easily provide inside information against a former team. So if the Broncos were playing the Chargers this week, would you still get on your soapbox and talk about the "appearance of impropriety" with Denver signing an ex-Charger?

 

[Mike the Brit]

Really? A rule against what, exactly?

Am I the only one who just totally doesn't understand what all of the fuss is about? The Patriots aren't bringing in a coaching mercenary to tap some triple-secret inside info on a specific opponent. They're just replacing their outgoing OC for next year with the obvious candidate.

The new guy is idle, so bringing him in now is the natural move to let him get to know the player personnel heading into draft, FA and planning season. And once he's on payroll, they'll assign him tasks just like any other staff member.

What exactly should they have done differently? Not reached the playoffs? Made the Steelers win so they couldn't face any other team their new asst. coach has worked for? Keep him in an underground bunker in an undisclosed location until the playoffs are over?

I truly don't get it. What's the big deal?

You're absolutely right -- obviously.

People who think that there's an issue are confusing two things: people gaining an unfair advantage because they add a coach with (supposed) confidential knowledge and adding a coach late in the season.

As for the first, how on earth could that be a problem -- unless, that is, your team has sacked a coach in the first place? If someone wants to bring in (say) Haley and pump his brains (or whatever he uses in place of brains) for information after KC have canned him -- well, good luck to them, I say! Sure, whoever has scouted Denver will have something to bring to the team that has to play them. And why not? How is that unfair?

As for the second, if you really object to people changing coaches during the season, you should be consistent. You should stop all appointments of coaches (or approaches and interviews) until after the Superbowl. No one then can add a coach, but no one is disadvantaged by the distraction. While you're about it, why not prohibit teams from firing coaches during the season? It's the same reasoning (or lack of it).

How anyone with any sense who isn't skewed by anti-Patriots prejudice and jealousy could find a problem here is beyond me.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is not the same thing AT ALL. A *player*, especially one from a team that's been eliminated from the playoffs, can bring a skillset to the mix, but not insider information.

A coach, on the other hand, can.

A player cut from the Patriots and signed by the Broncos, for example, could certainly bring that "insider information".

 

[strngplyr]

This is not the same thing AT ALL. A *player*, especially one from a team that's been eliminated from the playoffs, can bring a skillset to the mix, but not insider information.

A coach, on the other hand, can.

McDaniels' team was from another conference and was also eliminated from the playoffs. Point?