Captain Caveman

I don't think that they do. All I can find to support this is an article from 2003 saying they put a rule in place after Gruden was traded, however, Herm Edwards was traded to the Chiefs 3 years later for a draft pick.

If a position coach has two opportunities (one being in GB) that might have a bearing on his decision, especially since GB seems to deny permission frequently. It's also worth considering any possible impact on the morale of your employees. 1. You have a coach who feels he was denied a promotion - is he going to be as effective? 2. Other coaches will know he was denied the promotion - how do they feel about their organization? There are good reasons why this kind of permission to interview (for a promotion) is rarely denied, which is not to say that there aren't valid exceptions to the rule. Not yet, but he has been granted permission to interview, once that happens he can go if he wants. Only to Head Coach, for anything other than that the coach needs permission to interview, which is usually granted for a promotion, but not always.

So you did interview?

http://www.sptimes.c...aft_picks.shtml I don't know if this is still valid, considering Herm Edwards was traded 3 years after this. http://www.nytimes.c...html?fta=y&_r=0 With that being said, I think it's fairly standard to allow position coaches permission to interview for promotions, and I think it's the right thing to do in this case.

So we're paying him minimum wage the next 2 seasons? If I was Schwartz that's what I would want.

I have seen nothing to indicate the first part of your post is true. This is something that has happened (rarely) in previous years, and it is every team's right. If Goodell even brought it up he would have to explain himself since it is expressly allowed according to the league's rules. The second part of your post is part of the reason that coaches are usually allowed permission to interview for non-HC promotions, but mostly, it's because it reflects badly on the franchise when other coaches are deciding whether to come here. You don't want to have a reputation of not allowing your employees to move on to better jobs elsewhere.

Herman Edwards was traded after Gruden. I don't think Goodell has any say in the matter. http://www.prostarcoaching.net/library/NFL_Contact_Rules.pdf

Has anyone heard anything about how much turnover is expected among the D assistants?

My understanding is that teams will not hold a coach back from a promotion with another team primarily because that would make them a less attractive option when looking to hire coaches in the future. The only time I've seen compensation exchanged for a coach was in the case where it was not a promotion but a lateral move.

I'd like to see someone internal only because I think it would be helpful to keep most of the rest of the D staff in place (or if another coordinator would be willing to work with most of the staff in place, but I think that could get ugly quick unless we find someone special.)

Our D line has been best all year when the snap count is predictable, especially KW. He guesses a lot.

Also, we have more non-division losses than them, so that helps.

Jim Leonhard > Ed Reed at this stage in their career. That's not an endorsement of Jim Leonhard.

!@#$ Flutie.

Says the guy pining over Chad Rinehart.

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Whoever opens this thread next week is getting Rickrolled.

Yeah, it's all about family and roots. My dad was raised a Bills fan growing up in Ckeektowaga. I'm a Bills fan, and I hope my son will be a Bills fan. I'm 34, not old, but old enough to have some really great memories of the team with my Dad and uncles during the 80s / 90s glory years. I also have some great friends with similar family links to the Bills, and it's nice to share that with them. Yesterday was the first time I can remember turning off the game in disgust. But I'll be back on Sunday.

This is your fault, and again, !@#$ Flutie.

Hurrah!

Also, let me just say because it is my birthday and I am feeling entitled, !@#$ Flutie.

Right, but for a long time people could not buy another NFL video game because EA paid NFL to not allow it. Immediately after paying for this, they jacked up the price almost 100%. That's the definition of monopolistic behavior as it is generally recognized by the courts, strategically working to provide customers fewer options, and then profiting from it. But if you disagree, then I guess you disagree.

Do you disagree that this was a monopoly, or do you think monopolies should be legal?

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/163376-we-can-still-win-9-games/ This conversation seems familiar. Sure, we could run the table, and I would even agree that we are in a better position than most of the league to do so when considering our remaining schedule. The problem is that so far we have shown we win ~50% of the games we could / should (see Cleveland, KC, Cincinnati.) So it seems highly unlikely that we go 100% for the rest of the season. Yes you are delusional. But I appreciate your enthusiasm.

It's not about seeing the difference. It's about seeing that the difference does not render the more recent behavior harmless or meaningless.

Monopolies are illegal. This is how they are punished after the fact. If you don't like it, write your congress representatives and let them know how you feel about it.