Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vikings Deny Giants Permission to Interview Stefaniski

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TCHOF
    started a topic Vikings Deny Giants Permission to Interview Stefaniski

    Vikings Deny Giants Permission to Interview Stefaniski

    Per Adam Shefter on Twitter

    What a **** move. They turn him down for their OC job and then deny the guy the opportunity to make a move up with another organization.

  • TEM
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue_Cusen View Post

    Technically speaking, sure. Shurmer's forte' is supposed to be adjusting the offense to the opponent. He won a coordinator of the year award for his work on the Vikings offense. You really believe his fingerprints aren't going to be on those game plans?
    All HC are . They are the HC . Eli will most likely have some input as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue_Cusen
    replied
    Originally posted by TEM View Post

    Not really. it is the OC's job the develop each game plan. One of his main duties. The main reason to have a good one.
    Technically speaking, sure. Shurmer's forte' is supposed to be adjusting the offense to the opponent. He won a coordinator of the year award for his work on the Vikings offense. You really believe his fingerprints aren't going to be on those game plans?

    Leave a comment:


  • That Guy Rich
    replied
    Originally posted by speedman View Post

    I always thought the same thing. Teams would name some coach assistant head coach so that any move would not be a higher position except HC.
    Slick !

    Leave a comment:


  • speedman
    replied
    Originally posted by That Guy Rich View Post
    Guys wasn't there a rule that you couldn't stand in the way of a coach interviewing for a higher position. I'm almost positive this was in effect. But I guess I misunderstood it. Did anybody else ever hear this ?
    I always thought the same thing. Teams would name some coach assistant head coach so that any move would not be a higher position except HC.

    Leave a comment:


  • That Guy Rich
    replied
    Originally posted by TEM View Post
    Hence where the problem lies :

    http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/2...g%20Policy.pdf

    Page 7:

    1. Two Tiers of Coaching Staffs. For purposes of this Anti-Tampering Policy, each coaching staff is divided into two tiers: (1) head coach, and (2) all assistant coaches.


    2. Head-Coaching Opportunity. If a club is interested in discussing its head coaching position with an assistant coach whose playing season (excluding Pro Bowl) is over, and who is contractually obligated to another club, the assistant coachís employer club must permit the coach the opportunity to discuss, and possibly accept, such employment through March 1 of any year. After March 1, the employer club is under no obligation to grant such permission, but it may be voluntarily granted at the employer clubís discretion during the off-season.

    Page 8:

    3. Lateral Move. If a club is interested in discussing an assistant coaching position with an assistant coach who is contractually obligated to another club at any time prior to the opening of the employer clubís training camp, it will be considered a lateral move, and the employer club is under no obligation to grant the coach the opportunity to discuss the position with the interested club. At the discretion of the employer club, however, such permission may be voluntarily granted.


    It is a crappy rule to state going form Position Coach to OC or DC a lateral move.
    Thank You for this , Now it is before March 1st, now promoting an asst. to a coordinator is still considered an asst. so it falls under page 8, #3 as a lateral move ?

    WOW ! I think we need another option to accept a promotion to coordinator in todays football as a promotion and not a lateral move. But if that's the rule......

    Leave a comment:


  • That Guy Rich
    replied
    Guys wasn't there a rule that you couldn't stand in the way of a coach interviewing for a higher position. I'm almost positive this was in effect. But I guess I misunderstood it. Did anybody else ever hear this ?

    Leave a comment:


  • TE88
    replied
    Originally posted by TEM View Post

    Not really. it is the OC's job the develop each game plan. One of his main duties. The main reason to have a good one.
    Iíve actually decided I donít have a problem with the rules:

    1. Itís an anti tampering policy. So, you donít want teams screwing with each other by constantly ratcheting up the coaching salaries and mucking around with other peopleís staffs. Iím sure teams would like some ability to plan for the future.

    2. The coaching titles other than HC are essentially meaningless. There is too much variance in what these people do team to team. Green Bay employs a HC (playcaller), OC, Pass Game Coordinator, Run Game Coordinator, DC, plus the usual staff of position coaches. Explain to me who has more responsibility than who in THAT situation...explain how it compares to other teams? Itís impossible.

    3. Most coaches do not have long contracts anyway. And if a team gave a longer term deal to a coach itís because they like him and want him to stay around.

    As much as I think guys should be able to interview to see what theyíre worth, this is a pro sports league and not the normal workforce. Competition is fierce, and dirty. We donít let players shop around for jobs or become free agents every year. Coaches are a part of what makes a team competitive and need to be handled as a similar type of asset.

    Leave a comment:


  • TEM
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue_Cusen View Post

    Which in this situation for all intents and purposes it IS. He wouldn't be calling plays and if the offense takes off he won't get a ton of the credit. The O is gonna be the Shurmer show whoever the OC is. Still a crappy rule though.
    Not really. it is the OC's job the develop each game plan. One of his main duties. The main reason to have a good one.
    Last edited by TEM; 02-12-2018, 07:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue_Cusen
    replied
    Originally posted by TEM View Post
    Hence where the problem lies :

    http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/2...g%20Policy.pdf

    Page 7:

    1. Two Tiers of Coaching Staffs. For purposes of this Anti-Tampering Policy, each coaching staff is divided into two tiers: (1) head coach, and (2) all assistant coaches.


    2. Head-Coaching Opportunity. If a club is interested in discussing its head coaching position with an assistant coach whose playing season (excluding Pro Bowl) is over, and who is contractually obligated to another club, the assistant coachís employer club must permit the coach the opportunity to discuss, and possibly accept, such employment through March 1 of any year. After March 1, the employer club is under no obligation to grant such permission, but it may be voluntarily granted at the employer clubís discretion during the off-season.

    Page 8:

    3. Lateral Move. If a club is interested in discussing an assistant coaching position with an assistant coach who is contractually obligated to another club at any time prior to the opening of the employer clubís training camp, it will be considered a lateral move, and the employer club is under no obligation to grant the coach the opportunity to discuss the position with the interested club. At the discretion of the employer club, however, such permission may be voluntarily granted.


    It is a crappy rule to state going form Position Coach to OC or DC a lateral move.
    Which in this situation for all intents and purposes it IS. He wouldn't be calling plays and if the offense takes off he won't get a ton of the credit. The O is gonna be the Shurmer show whoever the OC is. Still a crappy rule though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gee718
    replied
    Originally posted by SugarBear56 View Post

    Bottomline- If he has an executed contract for current job without conditions to let him out, Vikes have all legal right to keep him status quo
    Any team that would put a potentially unhappy coach on their team is asking for trouble.

    #FREESTEFANSKI

    Leave a comment:


  • fifthavephil
    replied
    Whom was his agent ?
    Blame is on him.

    Leave a comment:


  • TCHOF
    replied
    Originally posted by SugarBear56 View Post

    Bottomline- If he has an executed contract for current job without conditions to let him out, Vikes have all legal right to keep him status quo
    Again, "legal right" does not mean it's not a **** move.

    Leave a comment:


  • SugarBear56
    replied
    Originally posted by TCHOF View Post
    Per Adam Shefter on Twitter

    What a **** move. They turn him down for their OC job and then deny the guy the opportunity to make a move up with another organization.
    Bottomline- If he has an executed contract for current job without conditions to let him out, Vikes have all legal right to keep him status quo

    Leave a comment:


  • TEM
    replied
    Originally posted by TE88 View Post

    I agree. He should be able to interview to at least use as negotiating power with his current position.
    I 100% agree.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X