Tennessee Titans in Search of New DC - Could Impact Buffalo

[MAJBobby]

7 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

“[t]he National Football League Coaches Association (‘NFLCA’) is a nonunion voluntary association that represents the interests of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League (‘NFL’) teams, as well as many retired coaches formerly employed by those NFL teams.”

 

It is very well know that the coaches are not unionized. It’s not a union. 

Fine. Unionize. 
 

Bills and any organization don’t owe them anything but their contract. 
 

as a direct competition organization you want to talk to my contracted employee I want compensation. 
 

otherwise change the rules. They did for HC and GM. 
 

why should the Bills make it easier for a team that made the AFC Championship game to fill their staff. I might feel a little differently if it was an NFC team. But I doubt it. If I am the owner I am blocking this interview (if ever requested) and not thinking twice 

[JGMcD2]

5 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Fine. Unionize. 
 

Bills and any organization don’t owe them anything but their contract. 
 

as a direct competition organization you want to talk to my contracted employee I want compensation. 
 

otherwise change the rules. They did for HC and GM. 
 

why should the Bills make it easier for a team that made the AFC Championship game to fill their staff. I might feel a little differently if it was an NFC team. But I doubt it. If I am the owner I am blocking this interview (if ever requested) and not thinking twice 

And now you’re describing a culture akin to the Houston Astros where people were treated like objects. Which caused a laundry list of issues and was the main reason the league was starting an investigation prior to the sign stealing scandal. 
 

Look, I agree with you in theory, it should be conducted this way. But you’re dealing with human beings... you can treat them like objects or property. Now they return to your staff and there is tension because you didn’t let them pursue a promotion (although it’s not recognized as a promotion by the league) that could further their career in the game. Then it starts to get ugly and you build up that reputation. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by JGMcD2

[MAJBobby]

12 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

And now you’re describing a culture akin to the Houston Astros where people were treated like objects. Which caused a laundry list of issues and was the main reason the league was starting an investigation prior to the sign stealing scandal. 
 

Look, I agree with you in theory, it should be conducted this way. But you’re dealing with human beings... you can treat them like objects or property. Now they return to your staff and there is tension because you didn’t let them pursue a promotion (although it’s not recognized as a promotion by the league) that could further their career in the game. Then it starts to get ugly and you build up that reputation. 

yet they treat the players THE exact way I am saying they are treating the coaches. 
 

as I said coaches get blocked every year from every team and NEVER spins into some toxic cycle you are trying to say it will spin into. 
 

so again the College All Star Games have started. My Coaches have started their offseason work. All promotions are filled. Any team wants to talk to my contracted coach I am saying NO. Unless it comes with compensation. So Tenn promote from within or look elsewhere to fill your staff that is a figure head for The HC defense anyway. 
 

you can come back to me next offseason before the college all star games and I will grant your permission. 
 

otherwise these coaches can form a union collective bargain or work to change the rules. Their other option is take One year Deals every year that way they have their control. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by MAJBobby

[JGMcD2]

7 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

yet they treat the players THE exact way I am saying they are treating the coaches. 
 

as I said coaches get blocked every year from every team and NEVER spins into some toxic cycle you are trying to say it will spin into. 
 

so again the College All Star Games have started. My Coaches have started their offseason work. All promotions are filled. Any team wants to talk to my contracted coach I am saying NO. Unless it comes with compensation. So Tenn promote from within or look elsewhere to fill your staff that is a figure head for The HC defense anyway. 
 

you can come back to me next offseason before the college all star games and I will grant your permission. 
 

otherwise these coaches can form a union collective bargain or work to change the rules. Their other option is take One year Deals every year that way they have their control. 

Okay, but we’ve broken down the fundamental differences between the coaches and the players and it hasn’t dawned on you that they’re different groups that have to be handled differently? 
 

Coaches are blocked every year but blocking them in the manner you’re suggesting where it becomes precedent in your organization that you’re not going to let people takes interviews after December/early January... nobody is going to come. Head Coaches are typically hired in January and then have to begin filling out their staff in the coming weeks as you approach February, which is the exact timetable you specified that you don’t want your coaches leaving the organization. 

 

The interview structure of assistant coaches for head coaching positions is what slows the hiring cycle down. You’re totally disregarding important pieces of the equation. 

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Okay, but we’ve broken down the fundamental differences between the coaches and the players and it hasn’t dawned on you that they’re different groups that have to be handled differently? 
 

Coaches are blocked every year but blocking them in the manner you’re suggesting where it becomes precedent in your organization that you’re not going to let people takes interviews after December/early January... nobody is going to come. Head Coaches are typically hired in January and then have to begin filling out their staff in the coming weeks as you approach February, which is the exact timetable you specified that you don’t want your coaches leaving the organization. 

 

The interview structure of assistant coaches for head coaching positions is what slows the hiring cycle down. You’re totally disregarding important pieces of the equation. 

again people will come. There are 32 organizations at this level. Yes I am making it a standard. You have a window for free non blocking. That window is closed. You want to talk to my employee now it will cost you pay the pick you have your interview. 
 

teams like RAVENS have historically blocked every year and guess what they still get top end coaches. That argument is a straw man because it never happens.  Philly same way. 
 

If I am the owner of the Buffalo Bills. Who made the playoffs I am NOT going to make it easy to help the competition. Sorry. And the RULES allow me to make it difficult so I am. 
 

you say it causes resentment. I say it shows the coach how much he means to the organization. 

[BillsVet]

Are they thinking of interviewing Brian Daboll for the job?  If so, I'm all for it.

Edited January 21, 2020 by BillsVet

[JGMcD2]

15 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

again people will come. There are 32 organizations at this level. Yes I am making it a standard. You have a window for free non blocking. That window is closed. You want to talk to my employee now it will cost you pay the pick you have your interview. 
 

teams like RAVENS have historically blocked every year and guess what they still get top end coaches. That argument is a straw man because it never happens.  Philly same way. 
 

If I am the owner of the Buffalo Bills. Who made the playoffs I am NOT going to make it easy to help the competition. Sorry. And the RULES allow me to make it difficult so I am. 
 

you say it causes resentment. I say it shows the coach how much he means to the organization. 

I will have to research on Baltimore and Philadelphia blocking assistant coaches for coordinator positions before I speak further on that.

 

If that is indeed the case, then have fun being one of few teams that does it, and then when it’s time for you to hire new staff you’re in trouble. Then it trickles over to trade negotiations for players. Then it’s an issue when you’re trying to get other owners onboard for your rule change proposals at the Owners meetings, etc. 

 

You’re trying to sell me on the fact that a reasonably prudent person is going to be told that Team X wants to interview them for a promotion to a coordinator position after they’ve worked for via countless hours as a position coach. 
 

They have the opportunity for more responsibility, a pay raise and they’re going to be one step closer to being a head coach. Then their teams tells them, we’re actually not going to let you pursue a pay raise, increased responsibility and we’re going to make it longer/harder for you to be a head coach.
 

I’m supposed to believe that reasonably prudent person is going to say “Wow, I really mean a lot to this team!” ? 
 

It’s more likely that reasonably prudent person is going to say “ Wow, does this organization really have the best interests of me and my family in mind? Is this somewhere I want to continue to work, or recommend that my colleagues work in the future?”

[MAJBobby]

Just now, JGMcD2 said:

I will have to research on Baltimore and Philadelphia blocking assistant coaches for coordinator positions before I speak further on that.

 

If that is indeed the case, then have fun being one of few teams that does it, and then when it’s time for you to hire new staff you’re in trouble. Then it trickles over to trade negotiations for players. Then it’s an issue when you’re trying to get other owners onboard for your rule change proposals at the Owners meetings, etc. 

 

You’re trying to sell me on the fact that a reasonably prudent person is going to be told that Team X wants to interview them for a promotion to a coordinator position after they’ve worked for via countless hours as a position coach. 
 

They have the opportunity for more responsibility, a pay raise and they’re going to be one step closer to being a head coach. Then their teams tells them, we’re actually not going to let you pursue a pay raise, increased responsibility and we’re going to make it longer/harder for you to be a head coach.
 

I’m supposed to believe that reasonably prudent person is going to say “Wow, I really mean a lot to this team!” ? 
 

It’s more likely that reasonably prudent person is going to say “ Wow, does this organization really have the best interests of me and my family in mind? Is this somewhere I want to continue to work, or recommend that my colleagues work in the future?”

Ok so show me this DOOMSDAY on ANY team in the NFL that has blocked interviews. Until that can be done it means NOTHING. 
 

 

[JGMcD2]

6 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Ok so show me this DOOMSDAY on ANY team in the NFL that has blocked interviews. Until that can be done it means NOTHING. 
 

 

Here is an article detailing how Mike McCarthy often blocked coaches. It discusses that blocking coaches can causes issues so McCarthy often promotes and/or gives the assistant coach he blocked a raise. Which you stated above that’s not what you would do... you explicitly said “Bills and any other organization don’t owe them anything other than their contract ”  you also referred to them as assets and property. 
 

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-often-deny-assistants-permission-to-interview-with-other-teams-ks87jo8-185390861.html/

 

You also keep asserting that there are only 32 teams so teams have the upper hand. You’re also disregarding college programs that also tend to pay assistant coaches more than professional teams. There are what 254 Division I college football programs between FBS and FCS? Those salaries are publicly available and defensive line coaches are making $500K. There are options for these coaches if you start restricting them like you’re proposing. 

[dave mcbride]

19 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Yep. Just bad form. I would add it may be even slightly more significant for a franchise like the Bills to not become a team known as "blockers."

 

The cost of being "that team" is greater than the benefit of keeping any given assistant.

'Good on Dolphins coach Brian Flores, letting a couple guys go for promotions. Jerry Schuplinski gets to be the quarterbacks coach with the Giants (removing “assistant” from his title) and join a guy, in Joe Judge, whom he was to join in Indianapolis as part of Josh McDaniels’ staff two years ago. And DC Pat Graham gets to add “assistant head coach” to his title in New York. Allowing guys to seek career advancement, and make personal decisions, has a way of giving a head coach a reputation of being the kind of guy people would want to work for. That, in the long run, will be of benefit to Flores.' (also @Hapless Bills Fan)

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/01/20/nfl-playoffs-super-bowl-liv-49ers-chiefs-patrick-mahomes-kyle-shanahan-mmqb

[MAJBobby]

12 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Here is an article detailing how Mike McCarthy often blocked coaches. It discusses that blocking coaches can causes issues so McCarthy often promotes and/or gives the assistant coach he blocked a raise. Which you stated above that’s not what you would do... you explicitly said “Bills and any other organization don’t owe them anything other than their contract ”  you also referred to them as assets and property. 
 

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-often-deny-assistants-permission-to-interview-with-other-teams-ks87jo8-185390861.html/

 

You also keep asserting that there are only 32 teams so teams have the upper hand. You’re also disregarding college programs that also tend to pay assistant coaches more than professional teams. There are what 254 Division I college football programs between FBS and FCS? Those salaries are publicly available and defensive line coaches are making $500K. There are options for these coaches if you start restricting them like you’re proposing. 

then they can go to College. The fact remains their is 32 NFL (pinnacle of coaching) Organizations. 
 

they are assets. Just like the players. Just like the FO. Just like the trainers. 
 

The team Doesn’t owe them anything other than the contract they signed. - However how does that statement mean if I block Butler I wouldn’t give him a pay bump or some arbitrary meaningless title?

 

now how many blocked coaches walked out on their contract and went to college. And did McCarthys Ravens et all stance stop them from finding quality coaches?  NOPE

 

 

sorry if I am sounding like a dick. Not meaning it. Just have my stance and this is also about competition. They can have the interview I want Picks to make it happen after my deadline 

Edited January 21, 2020 by MAJBobby

[MJS]

4 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

No It isn't, it is the business.  at this point Block the interview.  That is the Business, they do it for players, then do it for coaches.

 

So Tenn you want to talk to Butler it is a 4th round pick to talk to him.

 

An Assistant coach is just as much of an asset as players.  Cant talk to players under contract unless authorized by the team, same goes with Coaches (except for HC obviously), but hey Tenn you want to talk to him fine we will take a draft pick to grant the interview.

McDermott and Beane wouldn't do that, so it's a moot point. They will allow a coach to leave for a promotion. Gaurenteed.

[MAJBobby]

3 hours ago, H2o said:

I understand your point, but I still think it would be wrong to do to the guy personally unless they bump his pay up or something. Pretty sure a DB coach isn't making the same as would a DC. 

Ok block the interview give him a 100k bump for feelings. 

2 minutes ago, MJS said:

McDermott and Beane wouldn't do that, so it's a moot point. They will allow a coach to leave for a promotion. Gaurenteed.

Not a promotion according to NFL. 

[JGMcD2]

23 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

then they can go to College. The fact remains their is 32 NFL (pinnacle of coaching) Organizations. 
 

they are assets. Just like the players. Just like the FO. Just like the trainers. 
 

The team Doesn’t owe them anything other than the contract they signed. - However how does that statement mean if I block Butler I wouldn’t give him a pay bump or some arbitrary meaningless title?

 

now how many blocked coaches walked out on their contract and went to college. And did McCarthys Ravens et all stance stop them from finding quality coaches?  NOPE

 

 

sorry if I am sounding like a dick. Not meaning it. Just have my stance and this is also about competition. They can have the interview I want Picks to make it happen after my deadline 

Nope, you’re fine. I wasn’t taking it that way, and I hoping that I didn’t come across that way either. 
 

We’ve had some good discussions on here before and I respect your opinion and POV. Definitely understand where you’re coming from with the competitive aspect as well. 

[MAJBobby]

4 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Nope, you’re fine. I wasn’t taking it that way, and I hoping that I didn’t come across that way either. 
 

We’ve had some good discussions on here before and I respect your opinion and POV. Definitely understand where you’re coming from with the competitive aspect as well. 

nope didn’t take it from you that way either. All good. I just have been told when in debates I can come off as dickish and belittling and berating. 
 

it is a good debate and didn’t want to come off that way. 
 

I really do see your point and like I said if it was an NFC team I likely wouldn’t be as concerned about it. But being from direct competition I feel there is ZERO reason to help them or make it easy. And I want my teams leadership to think that way. They were one game away from the SB I want my teams leadership to see that and say YEAH we are not helping them. But won’t completely shut it down if they pony up a pick they can talk to him. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by MAJBobby

[JGMcD2]

4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

nope didn’t take it from you that way either. All good. I just have been told when in debates I can come off as dickish and belittling and berating. 
 

it is a good debate and didn’t want to come off that way. 
 

I really do see your point and like I said if it was an NFC team I likely wouldn’t be as concerned about it. But being from direct competition I feel there is ZERO reason to help them or make it easy. And I want my teams leadership to think that way. They were one game away from the SB I want my teams leadership to see that and say YEAH we are not helping them. But won’t completely shut it down if they pony up a pick they can talk to him. 

Not at all lol. I think you type a lot like I do, trying to add tone and inflection to certain points, as if you were physically having a conversation... and sometimes when that is typed it can come across the wrong way... but I kind of picked up on that and really didn’t think twice about it! 
 

Yeah I guess what you’re saying when you treat it on a case by case basis, it is different. Like the this specific example here. It would all probably come down to the communication behinds the scenes as to why the organization is doing that and getting the coach to truly believe it/buy in. 
 

That’s the hard part is it is a case by case basis and we often don’t see the behind the scenes conversations. Which to your point of treating them equally or like players, it does take the emotion out of it... it’s a just a standard where this is how it is and weren’t not making special considerations. Plenty of advantages to that... there are just the disadvantages as well. Same with my theories, there are pros and cons. 

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, JGMcD2 said:

Not at all lol. I think you type a lot like I do, trying to add tone and inflection to certain points, as if you were physically having a conversation... and sometimes when that is typed it can come across the wrong way... but I kind of picked up on that and really didn’t think twice about it! 
 

Yeah I guess what you’re saying when you treat it on a case by case basis, it is different. Like the this specific example here. It would all probably come down to the communication behinds the scenes as to why the organization is doing that and getting the coach to truly believe it/buy in. 
 

That’s the hard part is it is a case by case basis and we often don’t see the behind the scenes conversations. Which to your point of treating them equally or like players, it does take the emotion out of it... it’s a just a standard where this is how it is and weren’t not making special considerations. Plenty of advantages to that... there are just the disadvantages as well. Same with my theories, there are pros and cons. 

agree and if I was McD or Beane I would go to the coach in question. Lay out why you don’t think it is a good idea. 
 

I know coaches as also come to ownership at times and say I don’t want that job. But I also don’t want to turn them down (don’t want to burn a bridge) So can YOU block it. DeCosta did that for years. 
 

but at some point I do think a team should close their doors for easy poaching. I tie it to College All Stars because by that point they are working on the next season. And likely by that point all HCs are hired and their staffs filled as well. So you are not getting a chance at getting the best of the crop just with what’s the best of those out of jobs. 

[blacklabel]

22 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You can, actually, by rule.  All assistant coaches under contract can be blocked from any position except HC. 

 

That said, blocking your staff from taking a promotional step would generally be regarded as a d*** move and would seem kind of demoralizing and demotivating since most people want to feel that if they do a great job and are recognized for it, they can advance.

 

Yep, nobody wants the reputation as the guy who doesn't allow his assistant coaches to move up the ladder. Blocking a lateral move is one thing (case in point, they told NYG to pound sand when they asked about interviewing Daboll to be their OC) but blocking opportunities for guys to move up is gonna get that HC labeled as someone who isn't interested in helping you advance your career. It's not necessarily a bad thing, either, that other teams want to interview your assistants for promotions. Probably means you're doing something right as a HC. Sure, it's a bummer to lose one of your guys, but I think McDermott, for the most part, has done pretty well in replacing guys that leave.

[MJS]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

Not a promotion according to NFL. 

According to everyone else (including coaches) it is.

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, MJS said:

According to everyone else (including coaches) it is.

good thing the NFL has defined it isn’t then