BarleyNY Posted January 27, 2014 Author Posted January 27, 2014 Where are you hearing this rumor ? Will PM you.
CardinalScotts Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I would not make that deal. The Bills are under no obligation to let O'Neil go even though it is a promotion for him, and the other guys would just be making lateral moves. I say if they want him, give up a draft pick. if you stop letting guys advance their careers then no one worth a darn wants to coach here.
Buftex Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Just got my daily email from "Football Guys"...it is mostly just stuff concering the Browns caoching staff...Dowell Loggins (former Titans OC) is in play in Cleveland, and Cam Cameron was approached but says he is staying put at LSU. Also speculation that Pettine might go after Bill Callahan from the Cowboys. Perhaps of more interest to Bills fans, says that Pettine is interested in Don "Wink" Martindale as their DC "should the Bills deny their request" for Jim O'Neill. Martindale is the current Ravens LB coach, and served as the Broncos DC, until he was fired in favor of Jack Del Rio. Edited January 27, 2014 by Buftex
purple haze Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Sounds like the Bills have had time to sit down with the new DC and determine who they want to keep, and O'Neil isnt on the list. But if we're going to let him go anyways, we might as well secure the rest of the staff while we're at it. Another good move by the FO. I don’t think it’s that they don’t want to keep O’Neil. I think they know it’s just good mojo to let a man who has worked hard get his promotion.
Doc Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 This is what you do if you want to ruin your reputation and not be in the running down the road for HC's and assistants. There will be a time again, hopefully not soon, when Buffalo needs another assistant or perhaps HC. You don't win the coaching community over by telling current assistants they can't leave when they want to. It's not like it should be hard for Schwartz to find a LB coach. It's not an uncommon practice for teams to prevent assistants from being interviewed by other teams. Because it creates another hole on the coaching staff. As for winning the coaching community over, Marrone did his damnest to get Pettine the Browns HC'ing gig and that's what people should/will see the most. And if it's an issue, they should have it written into their contract.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I don’t think it’s that they don’t want to keep O’Neil. I think they know it’s just good mojo to let a man who has worked hard get his promotion. Maaayyybe, but I hope not. This was/is the Bills' staff. It's not there for Cleveland to pick through, especially after how they strung us along for 3 weeks. I don't have a problem with the Bills letting O'Neil go on to his promotion, but if the Bills think he is a value to the team, then they should keep him. I've said it all weekend, the coaching world is not like any industry any of us have ever worked in. These guys know the rules and what they are getting into. Sometimes teams let you go to a promotion and get stuck having to fill the hole, with no hard feelings. And sometimes coaches need to stay and honor their contracts when the teams need them, with no hard feelings. If Schwartz, Marrone, and Whaley have decided they want to bring in someone else, fine, good luck in Cleveland. But letting him go just because Cleveland asked would be a mistake. Edit: Green Bay denied teams talking to Alex Van Pelt. Does no one want to coach there anymore? Teams protect their own staffs all the time. Nothing wrong with it and it's part of the deal. Edited January 27, 2014 by DrDareustein
CodeMonkey Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) It's not an uncommon practice for teams to prevent assistants from being interviewed by other teams. Because it creates another hole on the coaching staff. As for winning the coaching community over, Marrone did his damnest to get Pettine the Browns HC'ing gig and that's what people should/will see the most. And if it's an issue, they should have it written into their contract. My personal opinion is teams should not even be able to prevent coaching moves if the move involves a promotion. That's what the Bills did with Pettine and O'Neil and I am happy they did the right thing. Failure to do so would be akin to a restraint of trade violation which would not be tolerated in a non-monopolistic environment. Edited January 27, 2014 by CodeMonkey
YoloinOhio Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I don’t think it’s that they don’t want to keep O’Neil. I think they know it’s just good mojo to let a man who has worked hard get his promotion. I think it could be that they were neither here nor there on O'Neil. OK to keep, fine to replace. No one wants wants to create another coaching opening, but we don't know what O'Neil expressed to the Bills about wanting to leave. Probably, in the end, the best for everyone. Edited January 27, 2014 by YoloinOhio
Doc Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Hopefully Schwartz has someone else/better in mind and makes this all moot.
RyanC883 Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) My personal opinion is teams should not even be able to prevent coaching moves if the move involves a promotion. That's what the Bills did with Pettine and O'Neil and I am happy they did the right thing. Failure to do so would be akin to a restraint of trade violation which would not be tolerated in a non-monopolistic environment. Did O'Neil leave. I missed that in the thread if he did. As for preventing coaches leaving and the analogy you made, it would be akin to a non-compete/non-solicitation clause which are common with high level executives, which Coaches are. Edited January 27, 2014 by RyanC883
Cheddar's Dad Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 My personal opinion is teams should not even be able to prevent coaching moves if the move involves a promotion. That's what the Bills did with Pettine and O'Neil and I am happy they did the right thing. Failure to do so would be akin to a restraint of trade violation which would not be tolerated in a non-monopolistic environment. Restraint of trade??? The man is under contract. It is within the Bills legal right to compell him to honor it if that is the Bills' wish and sue O'Neil for breach if O'Neil fails to honor it. Cleveland might offer compensation to induce the Bills to let him walk if they want him badly enough.
CodeMonkey Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 actually it would be akin to a non-compete/non-solicitation clause which are common with high level executives, which Coaches are. Non-compete agreements are largely unenforceable as it violates restraint of trade in most cases. I had a company file suit about that once but as soon as I stood up against it they backed down knowing it was unenforceable. Of course my salary and job profile is not in the same universe as a NFL head coach or coordinator (unfortunately)
YoloinOhio Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Non-compete agreements are largely unenforceable as it violates restraint of trade in most cases. I had a company file suit about that once but as soon as I stood up against it they backed down knowing it was unenforceable. Of course my salary and job profile is not in the same universe as a NFL head coach or coordinator (unfortunately) From my experience, these are all written differently and (being in HR) are a nightmare.
CodeMonkey Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Restraint of trade??? The man is under contract. It is within the Bills legal right to compell him to honor it if that is the Bills' wish and sue O'Neil for breach if O'Neil fails to honor it. Cleveland might offer compensation to induce the Bills to let him walk if they want him badly enough. Yeah usually that kind of thing is written into the contract in the first place, one way or the other. The same is true of the LB coach they fired recently. Usually if the employer has an out, so does the employee. The NFL is a bit unusual though as they are a monopoly. From my experience, these are all written differently and (being in HR) are a nightmare. Agree completely.
bbb Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 My personal opinion is teams should not even be able to prevent coaching moves if the move involves a promotion. That's what the Bills did with Pettine and O'Neil and I am happy they did the right thing. Failure to do so would be akin to a restraint of trade violation which would not be tolerated in a non-monopolistic environment. I always thought they were allowed by league rules to take a promotion? Did this change?
bigK14094 Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) My personal opinion is teams should not even be able to prevent coaching moves if the move involves a promotion. That's what the Bills did with Pettine and O'Neil and I am happy they did the right thing. Failure to do so would be akin to a restraint of trade violation which would not be tolerated in a non-monopolistic environment. Actually, in classification, the Dc and other asst coaches are all on the same level. Technically not a promotion. And, Green Bay played that card in the alex Van Pelt situation. the Bills did not in this case, and I think that Swatrz wanted to bring in Cunningham all along. Now, slaming the door on the others beside ONeil is OK.....let Pettine hire them when their contracts are up. Now, keeping the others is a mixed bag...if Swartz can live with them, and work with tem, its pretty clear that Henderson did a great job in the secondary, with Williams, McKelvin...and we need more of the same kind of coaching. Finally, continuity in coaching personnel is always good, as it will foster growth, not learning from the beginning every year. The Bills would have been better served with no change or little change on a much improved D....and with a better O, might have made the playoffs this coming year. Now, the D in addition to the O will once again be a question mark. anyhow, Marrone has to slam the door on Pettine for the other guys.....and, trust me, Buffalo is a great job to have...no trouble getting coaches in the future. In the corporate environment I lived in for 35 years, I had to make those release to interview decisions all the time, and we only refused a promotion interview if we in fact were also going to make that promotion within 1 year. And, we lived up to those refusals (made the promotion within one year) The NFL and the Bills are indeed just another corporate environment...its just that their business is entertainment via a sport. I am sure Brandon Watley Marrone are doing this all with their eyes wide open. Edited January 27, 2014 by bigK14094
YoloinOhio Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I always thought they were allowed by league rules to take a promotion? Did this change? Teams have to allow permission for coaches to interview IF it is for a HC position only. All other positions are considered lateral and teams can decide whether they want to grant permission. After March 1st, teams don't need to allow for HC positions either.
Captain Caveman Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Maaayyybe, but I hope not. This was/is the Bills' staff. It's not there for Cleveland to pick through, especially after how they strung us along for 3 weeks. I don't have a problem with the Bills letting O'Neil go on to his promotion, but if the Bills think he is a value to the team, then they should keep him. I've said it all weekend, the coaching world is not like any industry any of us have ever worked in. These guys know the rules and what they are getting into. Sometimes teams let you go to a promotion and get stuck having to fill the hole, with no hard feelings. And sometimes coaches need to stay and honor their contracts when the teams need them, with no hard feelings. If Schwartz, Marrone, and Whaley have decided they want to bring in someone else, fine, good luck in Cleveland. But letting him go just because Cleveland asked would be a mistake. Edit: Green Bay denied teams talking to Alex Van Pelt. Does no one want to coach there anymore? Teams protect their own staffs all the time. Nothing wrong with it and it's part of the deal. 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. Did O'Neil leave. I missed that in the thread if he did. As for preventing coaches leaving and the analogy you made, it would be akin to a non-compete/non-solicitation clause which are common with high level executives, which Coaches are. Not yet, but he has been granted permission to interview, once that happens he can go if he wants. I always thought they were allowed by league rules to take a promotion? Did this change? 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.
NoSaint Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I always thought they were allowed by league rules to take a promotion? Did this change? i feel like we need a sticky. or we can include this as a security question when people sign in. (not giving you specifically a hard time, i think its just been asked 8 times a day for over a week) the only promotion is from ANY position coach/coordinator to head coach. Either you are a head coach, or an assistant coach with regards to the promotion rule.
Recommended Posts