Can't they just block it? Seems to happen to us a lot.
A team can block a lateral move, but not an upward move.
No they can block upward moves too. Its a contract afterall.Its just an unwritten rule that you shouldnt. Its **CENSORED** baggy to prevent a promotion.
True
Wasn't there a team that just did that to us pre lovie?
That's far from stupid, based on Lovies past offenses it is a huge concern if Tedford does great.It would be a good concern to have but a concern none the less.If Jeff were to fail it's bad for the team, if he does great he would very likely get looked at by other team like the article says, can we then find a good replacement or are we right back to the "dark ages" again?
If Tedford was great, they could offer him the HC position, after Lovies contract runs out.
Firstly, you really think he would last that long if he were getting great results without another team coming along and hiring himSecondly, the chances are that if Tedfords offense works and Lovie can get his usual above average results on defense (reports of his greatness are vastly over exagerated) the chances are this team will be having great success and if that's the case why would the Glazers be thinking about letting Lovie go, it's not like he's some random guy they hired, he's like "family" thanks to his ties to the Dungy era.
Can't they just block it? Seems to happen to us a lot.
A team can block a lateral move, but not an upward move.
No they can block upward moves too. Its a contract afterall.Its just an unwritten rule that you shouldnt. Its d0uche baggy to prevent a promotion.
Actually they can't block upward moves, that has never been the issue, the problem is the NFL deems all assistants to be on the same level which blocks perceived upward moves like QB coach to OC but going from assistant to HC can't be blocked under the rules.
Well let's hope for our sake he's not very good, then we can hang onto him.
Well let's hope for our sake he's not very good, then we can hang onto him.
Who's saying that, if he is good it's a problem BUT it's a good problem to have in terms of results we will have had.I'd rather lose the guy because he's been poached after good results than lose him because he was fired due to bad ones, either way you will end up looking for a replacement.The only way we keep him long term is if the result are "Meh" and that in it's self could be the worst option because it's the one that could drag on & on & on, wasting away year & year.NOBODY is saying we should hope he sucks.A little reading comprehension goes a long way
TBTrojan: "Satire goes right over my head."Yeah, we get that.
TBTrojan: "Satire goes right over my head."Yeah, we get that.
No, I get satire.The problem comes from satire usually being humorous, something your post was severely lacking.
Its not my fault you suck, Leo.
Wasn't there a team that just did that to us pre lovie?
Yeah I believe the Cards blocked us from that McNulty guy ...he was the original guy we wanted as OC before we went after Sully.
So now were going to worry about becoming bad again if Tedford works out? With the thirty something years of struggling offenses in Tampa that's a problem worth looking forward too.Pooter Plunk gets paid for this brilliance? Some of you guys should have Red Board sponsors funneling a few bucks your way since you're more entertaining if not more insightful.
the "worst" best case scenario is Tedfords offense is really good. It would still be at least two seasons before he got a HC job, probably closer to 3 or 4
Let's worry about getting out of the dumpster before worrying about falling back into it.
That's far from stupid, based on Lovies past offenses it is a huge concern if Tedford does great.It would be a good concern to have but a concern none the less.If Jeff were to fail it's bad for the team, if he does great he would very likely get looked at by other team like the article says, can we then find a good replacement or are we right back to the "dark ages" again?
If Tedford was great, they could offer him the HC position, after Lovies contract runs out.
Firstly, you really think he would last that long if he were getting great results without another team coming along and hiring himSecondly, the chances are that if Tedfords offense works and Lovie can get his usual above average results on defense (reports of his greatness are vastly over exagerated) the chances are this team will be having great success and if that's the case why would the Glazers be thinking about letting Lovie go, it's not like he's some random guy they hired, he's like "family" thanks to his ties to the Dungy era.
Fair points.Tedford would need to really light up the scoreboard for a couple seasons before getting HC offers. Teams would want to make sure one good season was not a fluke.I am not sayin the Glazers would let him go, if things work out. Of course not. But the decision would be Lovies. He will be 56 years old soon, 60-61 at the end of the contract. Many NFL teams have made it clear to assistant coaches, that the HC job is theirs, if they want to stick around. It could possibly be a similar situation with Tedford. Assuming everything goes well.
Wasn't there a team that just did that to us pre lovie?
Yeah I believe the Cards blocked us from that McNulty guy ...he was the original guy we wanted as OC before we went after Sully.
I thought there was one more recent, but oh well. Point is made.Still, I don't understand the logic... to keep him, he must do bad? ....if he does badly, and he can go anywhere else he wants anyway imo.After reading this, it make me not even want an oc. Lol
