PFT: Reeves: “Coaches Never Punch A Clock”

[Bob Sacamano]

I just want to get this straight. You feel that Jerry is lying about the other coaches having the clause in their contract. Your justification for feeling this was because Jerry denied trade rumors before the trade deadline and then went ahead and made a trade.

I thought the time-clause was a Jerry thing? I don't remember him saying that all owners have their coaches sign it, just he had all his coaches sign it

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No, instead you are going to argue what I meant. Quit trying because you are wrong.

What I said is that it would prevent him (or anyone else) from doing that. A guard rail prevents you from going over the side of the road. It does not follow that if the guard rail was not there that you would go over the side. Prevention does not belie intent and you can sit there and try and say that it does all day long but you can be wrong all day long as well.

And yeah you are going to have to argue semantics when you are trying to tell me what I meant.

And again, you don't know crap about his track record. You certainly do not know a damn thing about his state of mind now that hes been retired for most of a decade, has health issues and is right around 70.

that's a pretty bad analogy for this situation, they don't put up guardrails on the assumption that people are going to deliberatly drive their cars off a bridge

the time-clause isn't protecting the coaches, it's protecting Jerry Jones

 

[Doomsay]

I just think it stupid to turn down Dan Reeve's input.

Ironically, I think that they actually ended up adopting some of his input...for free.

 

[burmafrd]

Maybe that was Jerruh's plan all along- keep him for a few days and pick his brain then let him go saying it was not working out.

Bottom line is that Dan Reeves has a reputation in this league that does NOT SAY SLACKER or anything like that.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

speaking of slackers

No, that was predicated on my wanting to make the effort, and I don't. If you want to sift through thousands of interview and press conference transcripts, feel free. I'm sure you'll unearth a fib or two.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The hubbub is about the intent. The contract existed without the clause, Reeves was already working, parameters appeared to be set.

11th hour Jerry inserts the clause and says "take it or walk."

Agreed, Jerry has that right. Just as Reeves had the right to walk.

But what brought about the sudden "need" for the clause? Folks are either upset because they respect Reeves and what he's accomplished in 40 years in the game and thought he would be good for the franchise, or they're not and think Reeves is lazy and was looking for an easy check without working for his money.

Topic for debate....

I love the selective belief system on boards like this.

Jerry says all coaches he has ever hired have this clause.

He's a liar and was just being mean to Reeves.

Jerry says Austin made the TO decision workable.

Suddenly people are foaming at the mouth for Austin because he is the real deal.

Which one was a lie and which the truth?

Personally I think Reeves would have worked hard. I also think he needs to get off his high horse. If he always worked the hours he claims, then the words mean nothing in the contract.

I think he has. So his ego got out of check because he found that to be an insult.

What I find truly amazing is this.

Not one coach past or present has come out and said Jerry lied about that clause in their contract.

Doesn't it seem odd with so many still around the league and in college that someone would have been interviewed and said, "First I've heard of this." Or. "Yeah, it was in my contract."

As much as Jerry is the whipping boy of the press, doesn't a lack of any comment by anyone denying the existence of this clause in a previous contract indicate maybe Jerry was telling the truth and Reeves ATTITUDE caused Jerry to show him the door?

I've hired and fired a lot of guys. If you gave me that attitude as I was hiring you, the results would have been the same.

See ya.

 

[Mash]

Maybe Jerry really does have that clause and he does really have all his coaches sign it.

If Reeves wanted to be here......he would of signed it....all the other coaches have it on this team.....whats the big deal?.....did poor Reese feel disrespected?
Who would of known if that clause was in the deal if he signed it anyways.?

Also

What makes Reeves any better then the other coaches? Because he is some sort of legend? I dont get all this man love for Reeves.....I really dont.

Reeves had a great carreer coaching...thats great....IMHO its no big loss losing him because he didnt like the wording in his contract.....

I laugh at that Jerry had some kind of "hidden agenda" or he was trying to control Wade Phillips...or Garrett......why bring him in if Jerry wasnt 100% on board in bringing him in? Is Reese some kind of Genius that he can come in for a few days and with all his superior knowledge ...that Jerry just needed a few days to pick his brain so he could solve all the teams problems?

Is that how it went :laugh2:

Jerry wanted insurance....thats all.....Reeves didnt like the contract.....

oh well...... IMHO .....its no big loss.

 

[dcfanatic]

LOL!!!

First, I think we are all aware that the "punching the clock" phrase was figurative, not to be taken literally. How do you regulate it you ask, maybe by showing up every day? Nobody at the place I work punches a clock, but I am 100% sure the boss knows who puts in 40 hrs and who doesnt.

Secondly, the clause was that as a consultant, Reeves was going to work the same number of hours as the HC and OC put in. Again, you are not telling anybody anything they didnt already know. This is not the issue we are even dicussing in this thread.

Third, I dont have quotes sitting in front of me and I am not going to go scouring the Internet search engines trying to show you a quote of what Jerry said. If you dont think he said it, thats your opinion. Likewise, I have never seen a quote from Jerry that this was some unique, first-ever contract clause in the history of the NFL that he came up with. Now if you can show me a quote like that I will admit I am wrong.

Jerry never said it. You were confused.

You typed in caps that you were sure he did and then couldn't find any proof that he said it.

And the GAC interview is what had you confused.

http://dcfanatic.com/2009/02/06/of-course-jerry-had-to-be-heard-on-the-reeves-issue.aspx

 

[Beast_from_East]

Jerry never said it. You were confused.

You typed in caps that you were sure he did and then couldn't find any proof that he said it.

And the GAC interview is what had you confused.

http://dcfanatic.com/2009/02/06/of-course-jerry-had-to-be-heard-on-the-reeves-issue.aspx

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, it doesnt really matter at this point I guess, Reeves is gone and he is not coming back.

This was a good debate we had, I enjoyed it.

 

[dcfanatic]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, it doesnt really matter at this point I guess, Reeves is gone and he is not coming back.

This was a good debate we had, I enjoyed it.

Me too.

Talk to ya later.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I claim victory then!

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Oh, gosh, Danny. Heaven forbid you become a mere mortal like the rest of us who punch a clock. (Well, i don't, but I am special.)

Danny, you dumb underachieving bag of chum.

Yeah, Jerra is dumb. Blame jerra. But last I heard jerra had three Super Bowl rings a and you, Danny, NONE as a coach or GM or hanger-on. So shut up and be happy you were interviewed by the 49ers and Cowboys and let it go.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

that's a pretty bad analogy for this situation, they don't put up guardrails on the assumption that people are going to deliberatly drive their cars off a bridge

the time-clause isn't protecting the coaches, it's protecting Jerry Jones

It actually protects the insurance companies as well. I understand that there are tertiary benefits to all involved but the bottomline is that just because something prevents something from happening it does not follow that an individual would do that.

And when I said other coaches I meant coaches of the Cowboys.

 

[ComicBookGuy]

It's amazing how many people on here don't understand the phrase "day to day".

 

[odog422]

...sigh...

We get 179 threads about this but no one actually pays attention.

Dan Reeves himself stated in any number of his seemingly 679 interviews on the subject that Jerry gave in to all of his concerns about title, duties and salary. Once they were agreed on all that then Jerry felt the clause was necessary. It is pretty clear Reeves wanted a real role and a real salary... which makes sense. It also makes sense that Jerry didn't wanna hire him to an open ended contract that meant he could spend a lot of time in Atlanta with with family if he was gonna be hired as an offensive guru.

As TD says, this is a non-story. They talked, it wasn't a fit, time to move on.

Reeves hasn't actually coached in a few years and there is some doubt he really wants to go into a 24x7 coaching role again unless he is a head coach.

If it is so ridiculous to assume the time wouldn't be an issue than Reeves could have simply signed and made his 2 or 2 mil per year. but Reeves himself mentions he was worried about failing to meet it and that he could released for violating the contract.

No one pays attention?

You oversimplify and mischaracterize what went on.

They didn't just talk and Jerry agreed to Reeves' demands (and vice versa) and during that discussion Jerry introduced the clause.

They talked, agreed on all substantive matters and Reeves had an office and was reporting to work on good faith because an agreement had been reached. THEN Jerry introduced the clause. If it was that important why wasn't it discussed when the other important issues for the contract were laid out and discussed?

That's the issue and the reason for debate in this forum.

 

[odog422]

I love the selective belief system on boards like this.

Jerry says all coaches he has ever hired have this clause.

He's a liar and was just being mean to Reeves.

Jerry says Austin made the TO decision workable.

Suddenly people are foaming at the mouth for Austin because he is the real deal.

Which one was a lie and which the truth?

Personally I think Reeves would have worked hard. I also think he needs to get off his high horse. If he always worked the hours he claims, then the words mean nothing in the contract.

I think he has. So his ego got out of check because he found that to be an insult.

What I find truly amazing is this.

Not one coach past or present has come out and said Jerry lied about that clause in their contract.

Doesn't it seem odd with so many still around the league and in college that someone would have been interviewed and said, "First I've heard of this." Or. "Yeah, it was in my contract."

As much as Jerry is the whipping boy of the press, doesn't a lack of any comment by anyone denying the existence of this clause in a previous contract indicate maybe Jerry was telling the truth and Reeves ATTITUDE caused Jerry to show him the door?

I've hired and fired a lot of guys. If you gave me that attitude as I was hiring you, the results would have been the same.

See ya.

A question was posed earlier in this thread -- how does one quantify this clause with your head coach? Jerry says to Jimmy, et al., you have to work as many hours as ....who? It's the head coach. So how plausible is it that clause is in the contract?

As to why no previous coaches have come out in the press verifying or denying this...why would they? What's to be gained by them? Media time? A chance to either vilify or toot Jerry's horn?

And finally, maybe you would have fired those guys. But I doubt highly you would have brought them on board, had discussions to iron out their role and salary, gave them an office, and then days later when time to sign the contract, you've inserted a clause specifying whatever it is Jerry is specifying. My sense would be, if you're fair, you would discuss this clause when you had all your other pertinent discussions. That's the issue. Not whether you believe Jerry or not.

And for purposes of this issue, what better way to run off someone with the skins on wall Reeves has than to indirectly question his work ethic? Jerry changed his mind. Simple. He didn't want him here. Jerry's history is filled with examples of when he wants a player, coach, whatever, he will get that person here. Not lose out on them on a technicality.

 

[Bleu Star]

I claim victory then!

I claim victory over the clowns that said he didn't come because of TO.

Oh Wait!

 

[CATCH17]

Oh, gosh, Danny. Heaven forbid you become a mere mortal like the rest of us who punch a clock. (Well, i don't, but I am special.)

Danny, you dumb underachieving bag of chum.

Yeah, Jerra is dumb. Blame jerra. But last I heard jerra had three Super Bowl rings a and you, Danny, NONE as a coach or GM or hanger-on. So shut up and be happy you were interviewed by the 49ers and Cowboys and let it go.

Thats the spirit!

 

[5Stars]

I claim victory over the clowns that said he didn't come because of TO.

Oh Wait!

You can't brush this under the table Mr. "He wouldn't come because of TO".


The above is you replying to me in another post where I said replying to yourself was gay.

I'll give you 24 hours to find a post of mine that said that.

If you find it, I'll send you 50 bones, if not you send me 50 bones! We can PM each others address.

Don't make accusations that you cannot prove. You should know better then that...





Deal, or weasle?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You can't brush this under the table Mr. "He wouldn't come because of TO".


The above is you replying to me in another post where I said replying to yourself was gay.

I'll give you 24 hours to find a post of mine that said that.

If you find it, I'll send you 50 bones, if not you send me 50 bones! We can PM each others address.

Don't make accusations that you cannot prove. You should know better then that...what you say, sucker?





Deal, or weasle?