Twitter: Dan Campbell is Available!

cowboy_ron

You Can't Fix Stupid
Messages
15,360
Reaction score
24,303
Campbell might have picked up some stuff from working for Payton but he's not really the innovative play caller we need. He's more stoic, discipline guy.
He's about as good as you'll be able to get with a meddling owner.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,948
Reaction score
25,849
He's never called plays. I'm sure he knows every offensive concept out there and how to defend it but again he's never called plays.
That’s why I say no one knows
He may be an innovative guy or dumb as a box of rocks
Other than sitting and talking with him just no way to know
 

_sturt_

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
3,768
Nah...Moore is our guy.

I wouldn't totally diss that option.

But if you think so highly of that guy to do the job, what are you waiting for? Call the presser the day after you let Linehan go, if not the same day.

Nah. Moore's a fall back.

Not that fall backs haven't actually proven successful on occasion. But you don't want to be making a routine of that, now do you.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,916
Reaction score
22,440
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
He can. There was a clause in his contract that he can opt out if ownership changes hands. With Benson's passing, it has.
Is the team still with Benson’s family? If so, that may not qualify as a change in ownership.
 

skinsscalper

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,146
Reaction score
5,693
Is the team still with Benson’s family? If so, that may not qualify as a change in ownership.
It actually does. Benson was the SOLE owner of the team. Staying in the family doesn't disqualify an ownership clause.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,916
Reaction score
22,440
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
It actually does. Benson was the SOLE owner of the team. Staying in the family doesn't disqualify an ownership clause.
It depends on how the clause is actually written as to whether that’s true, but you are probably right. Whether he was sole owner was really what I wasn’t sure of. If other family members were already part owners, or if the team was held in a Corp or other entity owned even in small part by other family members, that might be different.
 

skinsscalper

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,146
Reaction score
5,693
It depends on how the clause is actually written as to whether that’s true, but you are probably right. Whether he was sole owner was really what I wasn’t sure of. If other family members were already part owners, or if the team was held in a Corp or other entity owned even in small part by other family members, that might be different.
Benson was the reason Payton re-upped with the Saints and the reason he had the clause added to his contract (no other HC currently has a similar clause). Benson's health was the reason the clause was added to begin with. I think it's safe to say that Payton is OK with the current ownership (that and the fact that Brees is still his QB). But, like Parcells said: Coaching the Cowboys is like playing the "big room" in Vegas. I don't think Payton is coming here, to be honest but don't think that Jones was pissing in the wind when he said last week that he wasn't going to make any proclamations regarding the staff when we might have an opportunity next week. Garrett hasn't been given that extension that was a lead pipe lock just a week ago, either.

Jones is at least going to make a run at Payton. Of that, I'm pretty sure. I'm just not certain Payton is ready to move on.
 

_sturt_

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
3,768
Brees has one more year on his contract.

I see practically zero reason to believe that Payton is going to be on the market.
 
Top