The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Football Coach Scoop-January 9, 2010
The Redskins have been denied permission to interview Broncos Running Backs coach Bobby Turner for a position on the team's coaching staff,
according to Football Coach Scoop. Also, the Denver Post states that Broncos strength and conditioning coach Rich Tuten, assistant strength coach Greg Saporta, special-teams assistant Keith Burns and director of football administration Mike Bluem have been denied permission to interview with Shanahan for staff positions in Washington.

Can't you just interview them for a better job title?

chiefhog44 wrote:Can't you just interview them for a better job title?

Yea, interview the guy for director of running back operations.

They want some compensation for it - like draft picks.

Well if the SKINS really want Bobby they can promote him to Running Game coordinator/Assistant head coach of offense. I'm sure they could do this and it would be within the rules/guidelines of getting permission for a lateral move to a coordinator from a RB coach. Josh McDaniels should have known that keeping a coaching staff from a prior regime for a coach as popular as shanny should have prompted him to fire all of them. Shanny will find a way around this.

Good points on getting around the rule.

Its just stupid on the Broncos part. Why as a coach would you want somebody working for you who wants to be somewhere else? You want loyal people that you can trust to do a good job for you.

riggofan wrote:Its just stupid on the Broncos part.

If I were the owner, I'd be doing the best thing for the team, which, if one of the posters above is right, means more draft picks.

That's smart, in my book.

chiefhog44 wrote:Can't you just interview them for a better job title?

It used to just be "better title" but teams abused that with titles that didn't really match the actual position in the organization. I don't remember the exact rules, if someone does speak up. But I believe all you can do w/o getting permission is promote to O or D coordinator or HC. I could be wrong on that, but it's definitely not just better title anymore though.

riggofan wrote:Its just stupid on the Broncos part. Why as a coach would you want somebody working for you who wants to be somewhere else? You want loyal people that you can trust to do a good job for you.

Agreed.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:Can't you just interview them for a better job title?

It used to just be "better title" but teams abused that with titles that didn't really match the actual position in the organization. I don't remember the exact rules, if someone does speak up. But I believe all you can do w/o getting permission is promote to O or D coordinator or HC. I could be wrong on that, but it's definitely not just better title anymore though.

I think it's just HC.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

riggofan wrote:Its just stupid on the Broncos part.

If I were the owner, I'd be doing the best thing for the team, which, if one of the posters above is right, means more draft picks.

That's smart, in my book.

Ok so your "smart" owner demands draft picks for this assistant coach. Our "smart" owner says, "uh no, I'm not giving you any draft picks for an assistant coach, that's moronic."

So now your smart owner has no additional draft picks and an unhappy coach on the coaching staff who has an offer to work someplace else and would prefer to be there.

You really want to trust your season to a coach who doesn't want to be there? That's smart in your book??

The only reason this is going on is because Pat Bowlen is puffing up his chest to Shanahan - not because the owner really believes he's going to get some kind of compensation.

(Then again, he is dealing with Dan Snyder so maybe Bowlen thinks Snyder would be stupid enough to give him draft picks for an assistant coach! hah.)

btw Anybody watching this Cowboys game? Suisham is killing it!!!

So just appoint Kyle Shanahan as Running backs coach and interview BTurner for O Coordinator

It really ticks me off that Bowlen is playing hardball on this.

We need BTurner more than they do.

Furthermore, I thought MS was making phone calls putting a staff together for a year, I understand you can't officially interview without certain conditions but shouldn't we have at least some commitments in place?

If we end up with the Zorn staff and Shanny as a figurehead HC I'm not sure if that's gonna get it done.

Guys... the 2009 season isn't even over yet... isn't it a tad premature to be worried about the Redskins 'having to stick' with the Zorn regime in 2010?

Shanny will get the coaches that he wants - maybe not all of them - and maybe a couple will be second choices, but the only way someone from the Zorn staff stays is if Shanny wants them.

Try to have a longer term view than a week and you wouldn't get so frazzled.



The Broncos can balk all they like - they won't be able to stop all of them from coming, but the Redskins won't be able to offer all of them a higher position either...

I like how some of you assume that they ALL want to work in Washington.

BeeGee wrote:I like how some of you assume that they ALL want to work in Washington.

Not necessarily in DC, but for Shanahan.

Deadskins wrote:

BeeGee wrote:I like how some of you assume that they ALL want to work in Washington.

Not necessarily in DC, but for Shanahan.

Understood. I think a lot is being assumed here. That being said, these rules don't seem fair at all.

brad7686 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:Can't you just interview them for a better job title?

Yea, interview the guy for director of running back operations.

Director of RBs

BeeGee wrote:I like how some of you assume that they ALL want to work in Washington.

It actually more bugs me from a fairness standpoint. If a guy wants to interview for another job, you shouldn't be able to block him from that opportunity. All that does is create ill-will between you.

Considering how the season ended for the Broncos, I am not necessarily sure I want several of these people. They can keep them for all I care.

No Draft picks sellout Bruce / Mike !!! You hear me???!!!

PulpExposure wrote:

BeeGee wrote:I like how some of you assume that they ALL want to work in Washington.

It actually more bugs me from a fairness standpoint. If a guy wants to interview for another job, you shouldn't be able to block him from that opportunity. All that does is create ill-will between you.

If you sign a contract, you should be held to your contract. That's what I was told when I tried to get out of a contract once...

VetSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

BeeGee wrote:I like how some of you assume that they ALL want to work in Washington.

It actually more bugs me from a fairness standpoint. If a guy wants to interview for another job, you shouldn't be able to block him from that opportunity. All that does is create ill-will between you.

If you sign a contract, you should be held to your contract. That's what I was told when I tried to get out of a contract once...

Of course that's what they tell you. However, if you read employment contracts, there's almost always an out clause in the contract...whether it's for you, or for your employer. Usually for the employer, to be able to terminate you on somewhat specious grounds, so they can fire you if they really want to.

In the NFL, they can, and do, terminate assistant coaches almost at will. Since teams can do this, I personally feel the coaches should also be able to "fire" the team if they want to, to take a different job.

Employment contracts are inherently unfair imho. Too much leverage to the employer, who can force you to basically sign a very one sided contract, as they have all of the leverage. Courts also tend to agree with my view, and rarely enforce contracts against employees (I mean the end game is if the employer wins, what...you'll force an unhappy employee to work for you?)...which is why most of corporate America doesn't do employment contracts anymore (for the bulk of their employees, barring the executive management).

I don't have the knowledge to debate with you on this subject. I just think that if you put your name on the dotted line, you should have some responsiblity to uphold your end of it. NOT having the responsiblity to uphold your end of any contract (regardless of which side you are on) are root causes for many problems.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't have the knowledge to debate with you on this subject. I just think that if you put your name on the dotted line, you should have some responsiblity to uphold your end of it. NOT having the responsiblity to uphold your end of any contract (regardless of which side you are on) are root causes for many problems.

In theory, I agree. However, it should apply both ways; if the employer doesn't feel they have to uphold their side of the contract, I don't think the employee should feel obligated to do so, either. It's a fairness thing

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:Can't you just interview them for a better job title?

It used to just be "better title" but teams abused that with titles that didn't really match the actual position in the organization. I don't remember the exact rules, if someone does speak up. But I believe all you can do w/o getting permission is promote to O or D coordinator or HC. I could be wrong on that, but it's definitely not just better title anymore though.

I think it's just HC.

Not true. Seatle stole Pete Rodriguez from the Skins by "promoting" him to Asst HC/Special Teams. Pete was one of the best ST coached in the NFL anf the Skins had one of the best ST and the Chawks one of the worst. He left for the Chawks and their ST instantly became one of the best and the Skins' ST became one of the worst.

The Skins got screwed w/o draft compensation.

Make this guy Co-offensive coordinator/RB coach and their is nothing Denver can do about it.

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't have the knowledge to debate with you on this subject. I just think that if you put your name on the dotted line, you should have some responsiblity to uphold your end of it. NOT having the responsiblity to uphold your end of any contract (regardless of which side you are on) are root causes for many problems.

In theory, I agree. However, it should apply both ways; if the employer doesn't feel they have to uphold their side of the contract, I don't think the employee should feel obligated to do so, either. It's a fairness thing

I completely concur, my friend...