Bottom line is that bad coaches are safer in bad economy

[sdbillsfan2]

"

Each of the 32 men who began this NFL season as a head coach still holds the job, and it's not because all 32 bosses are happy.
It's because the unhappy bosses are caught in an intrapersonal power struggle.
On one hand, they want to be associated with winning franchises.
On the other hand, they feel more obligated than ever to limit expenses.
And, so far, the more powerful hand has been the one on the checkbook "...............................................................
Let it be said, too, that this economy also works against such accomplished but unemployed coaches as Mike Shanahan, Bill Cowher and Jon Gruden — each of whom would command a high-end salary.
Though there are many reasons to resist changing coaches during the season — one research study revealed no interim coach in the post-merger era has led a team to the playoffs — that hasn't stopped owners in the past.
It's not stopping them now, either. What's stopping them is the idea of paying a guy who isn't working.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports-headlines/ci_13708305

[ddaryl]

Re: Bottom line is that bad coaches are safer in bad economy

yay!!! another reason to be depressed


I'm tired of being Dicked around

[WeAreArthurMoates]

Re: Bottom line is that bad coaches are safer in bad economy

I have no problem with him sticking around until the end of the year and if this is true about the bad economy Dick will have to be fired. We'd be lucky to fit 30k in the stands with him back and that's just far too much money too lose.

[Demon]

Re: Bottom line is that bad coaches are safer in bad economy

I call BS.

First year coaches for the most part are safe because, most people who hire them keep them around for 2-3 years to see what they have. If they keep firing first year coaches, they will look like idiots and never get a proven coach to agree to work for them.

As for this part in the article-

That's partly why Zorn (2-5) remains on the job, though with severely diminished authority. It helps explain Buffalo's continued support of Dick Jauron (3-5, one winning record in nine seasons as a head coach) and Cleveland's unwillingness to shed Eric Mangini (1-7), despite indications he annoys 90 percent of those around him.
Yet it is evident that Browns owner Randy Lerner wants to take action; on Monday he fired general manager George Kokinis, who was halfway through his first season and had been recruited by his former roommate, Mangini. Kokinis is the second front-office official to get tossed, following Erin O'Brien, Mangini's hand-picked director of team operations.
Why is Mangini safe? Partly because he is good at rubbing Lerner's ego, but mostly because he is in the first year of a four-year deal worth almost $10 million.
It's not that Lerner accepts losing. It's that his checkbook hand won't let him fire the coach. It is rumored that Lerner is pursuing a "for cause" case for firing Kokinis.
So first-year coaches such as Mangini, Tampa Bay's Raheem Morris (0-7), Kansas City's Todd Haley (1-6), Detroit's Jim Schwartz (1-6) and St. Louis' Steve Spagnuolo (1-7) should consider themselves safe. As long as they don't break rules or commit crimes or violate policy or a character clause, it's too costly to cut them, no matter the record.

Mangini is not safe. And he will get fired. The Browns owner owes roughly $20 million to their former GM Phil Savage and former coach Romeo Crennel. And he just fired a GM who he hired in JANUARY, so i'm sure he's got some good dough to pay up for him and obviously the remaining deal for Mangini, which the article says is 4 years worth $10 million.

Brownies will hire a big money GM and almost all GM's first move is to fire their coach and hire a new one. With their current debt to coach/gm and 2nd debt, and then hiring new one, the Browns will owe a TON of money just to current and former coaches/gms.

But as firing "bad" coaches goes, i think this may be the record number of coaching changes in the NFL. But like i said, most first year coaches will get another year to prove mainly because, it's the right thing to do. They hired them with a plan into the future. Not everyone can win in their first year.

[YoungEz]

Re: Bottom line is that bad coaches are safer in bad economy

Just a question, why is it that coaches salaries are guaranteed and players are not?

That does not make any sense to me, i understand some of it but not all of it being guaranteed

[BillsWin]

Re: Bottom line is that bad coaches are safer in bad economy

Bottom line, Ralph is going to have to eat close to 6 million in cash by firing Jauron. All because he stupidly gave skeletor an extension early last season.

He will also have to dish out good money to get a good coach. Its that simple. Ralph will either put the Bills in a position to win next season or single handedly keep them from having another winning season for another five to ten years by keeping Jauron or hiring a piece of crap to replace the current piece of crap.

[sdbillsfan2]

Re: Bottom line is that bad coaches are safer in bad economy

[quote=BillsWin]

He will also have to dish out good money to get a good coach.



Actually he probably won't . His History is he doesn't like to pay coaches.