Why dd JJ/Wade want to bring Dan Reeves in, if we were satisfied with Garrett?

[odog422]

I wouldn't call it silly unless I knew the actual language and was able to compare it against other "market" contracts in the league.

I'd definitely call it silly regardless for two reasons.

One, coaching is a full time job, that's a given. Teams generally already have in place their structure weekly, usually from the HC in specifics, but in terems of scheduling and time, what is generally accepted throughout the league. You have your practices, your have your meetings, you have your film work. Coaches have their responsibilities in that regard. I have never, ever heard of that work not being fulltime. I think as a consultant, just to know what is going on, as well as be a part of what will happen, it's a given Reeves would have had to have been a part of that. And you can add gamedays to that as well.

Secondly, when have we EVER seen Jerry not "make it happen" if that's what he really wants.

I go with Chief and others - Jerry simply was not willing to risk having the strong presence of Reeves potentially interfere with his relations to players, as being the voice of all things Cowboys in lieu of the HC, and most importantly, have to attribute or see credit attributed to Reeves were the team successful. And yes, I do believe it is that important to him that he receive that credit.

Those reasons, as well as Jerry's belief that this team has enough talent to get where it wants to go "as is" were IMO, the overriding and determining factors as to why Reeves is not here.

 

[odog422]

I agree. I doubt there is anyone in this forum who has a clue of what the other 31 teams do from a contract standpoint. Obviously if some (or alot) of other teams are doing it, it isnt a joke at all and just standard operating procedure.

Or maybe there's another reason Jones puts it in there. Perhaps at some point in the past he has had reason to question how long some of his coaches are really working.

Fire them. Problem solved.

 

[dbair1967]

Fire them. Problem solved.

maybe he did

 

[theogt]

I'd definitely call it silly regardless for two reasons.

One, coaching is a full time job, that's a given. Teams generally already have in place their structure weekly, usually from the HC in specifics, but in terems of scheduling and time, what is generally accepted throughout the league. You have your practices, your have your meetings, you have your film work. Coaches have their responsibilities in that regard. I have never, ever heard of that work not being fulltime. I think as a consultant, just to know what is going on, as well as be a part of what will happen, it's a given Reeves would have had to have been a part of that. And you can add gamedays to that as well.

Secondly, when have we EVER seen Jerry not "make it happen" if that's what he really wants.

I go with Chief and others - Jerry simply was not willing to risk having the strong presence of Reeves potentially interfere with his relations to players, as being the voice of all things Cowboys in lieu of the HC, and most importantly, have to attribute or see credit attributed to Reeves were the team successful. And yes, I do believe it is that important to him that he receive that credit.

Those reasons, as well as Jerry's belief that this team has enough talent to get where it wants to go "as is" were IMO, the overriding and determining factors as to why Reeves is not here.

If it's a given, then he should have signed it, no problem.

Your second point has nothing to do with whether it's silly or not.

 

[theogt]

Fire them. Problem solved.

maybe he did

And if he did fire them and they were in breach of their contract, then he has a defense against having to pay them the remainder of their contract.

 

[craig71]

What I can't figure out is why did Jerry and Dan reach an impass because of an hours clause.Reeves already had an office and was on the job,if Jerry really didn't want him here it never would have gone that far.I'm thinking there is more to the issue than will ever be known by Ordinary M. Fan.

Craig

 

[pancakeman]

Yup, I think there was a more fundamental disagreement and all parties agreed to keep quiet on that and agree on the hours clause dispute as the story for the public.

 

[odog422]

maybe he did

And let's say he did. Again, problem solved and doesn't neccesitate language in contract. If for example, someone is a slacker, all it does is ensure he's at the facility...doesn't mean he's working. Which, if he's that type, he probably isn't.

 

[odog422]

If it's a given, then he should have signed it, no problem.

Your second point has nothing to do with whether it's silly or not.

Why? His reputation precedes him. He's got the skins on the wall. He simply could have been insulted enough that he felt if Jerry would even put something like that in the contract, he wants nothing to do with him. I have no hesitation in giving the benefit of the doubt to Reeves over Jerry in this instance.

The second point is that it doesn't matter whats SOP around the league when it comes to Jerry and what he wants, so yes, it's silly to make the pronouncement that the clause prevented you from doing what you really wanted to do, when nothing has ever stopped you before.

 

[theogt]

Why? His reputation precedes him. He's got the skins on the wall. He simply could have been insulted enough that he felt if Jerry would even put something like that in the contract, he wants nothing to do with him. I have no hesitation in giving the benefit of the doubt to Reeves over Jerry in this instance.

This is exactly my point. If Reeves let his ego get in the way of "SOP," then I'd say that's pretty friggin' silly. If Jimmy Johnson and Bill Parcells can sign the contract, so can Dan Reeves. This is particularly true when he's signing up for a more advisory role.

The second point is that it doesn't matter whats SOP around the league when it comes to Jerry and what he wants, so yes, it's silly to make the pronouncement that the clause prevented you from doing what you really wanted to do, when nothing has ever stopped you before.

If your point is that Jerry should have acted abnormally relative to the rest of the league just because Jerry sometimes acts abnormally, I don't think that point holds much water in determining whether the contract was abnormal.

 

[odog422]

And if he did fire them and they were in breach of their contract, then he has a defense against having to pay them the remainder of their contract.

I'll concede that point. However, other language governing performance and dismissal for lack thereof, could be inserted for some protection that doesn't obligate you to full payment on the contract.

Above all, though, at the end of the day, I think it's clear that Jerry at the 11th hour simply decided he didn't want Reeves, IMO, for the reasons stated in my opening post.

 

[theogt]

I'll concede that point. However, other language governing performance and dismissal for lack thereof, could be inserted for some protection that doesn't obligate you to full payment on the contract.

Above all, though, at the end of the day, I think it's clear that Jerry at the 11th hour simply decided he didn't want Reeves, IMO, for the reasons stated in my opening post.

Jerry brought him in. He gave him an office. He had him sitting in film review with the coaches. He then hands him his standard coach's contract after they've already worked out the meat of the contract in terms of compensation, title, and role.

And Reeves throws a hissy fit about some minor, irrelevant clause in the contract based on principle.

I don't think that sounds like Jerry pulling the rug because he had cold feet. Sounds like an old man acting like a child because his ego was hurt.

 

[dbair1967]

I'll concede that point. However, other language governing performance and dismissal for lack thereof, could be inserted for some protection that doesn't obligate you to full payment on the contract.

Above all, though, at the end of the day, I think it's clear that Jerry at the 11th hour simply decided he didn't want Reeves, IMO, for the reasons stated in my opening post.

Its just speculation on your part and nothing else. The only fact we know about is Reeves and Jones both said a cluase was put in there about hours. Reeves says he's never had it and wouldnt agree to it, and Jones says its in all his coaches deals.

 

[odog422]

This is exactly my point. If Reeves let his ego get in the way of "SOP," then I'd say that's pretty friggin' silly. If Jimmy Johnson and Bill Parcells can sign the contract, so can Dan Reeves. This is particularly true when he's signing up for a more advisory role.

As for Jimmy and Parcells, we don't know if the clause was even in their contracts so that's moot. And also undermines your argument for why Reeves should have signed it.

If your point is that Jerry should have acted abnormally relative to the rest of the league just because Jerry sometimes acts abnormally, I don't think that point holds much water in determining whether the contract was abnormal.

Well, Reeves did say that he had never seen something like that in his 30+ years of coaching, so again, I give him the benefit of the doubt over Jerry and if that's the case, then it is silly.

 

[odog422]

Jerry brought him in. He gave him an office. He had him sitting in film review with the coaches. He then hands him his standard coach's contract after they've already worked out the meat of the contract in terms of compensation, title, and role.

And Reeves throws a hissy fit about some minor, irrelevant clause in the contract based on principle.

I don't think that sounds like Jerry pulling the rug because he had cold feet. Sounds like an old man acting like a child because his ego was hurt.

Since that old man said he had never seen a clause like that in all his years of coaching in the NFL, I'd say it sounds like a wise old man to me who saw the writing on the wall of what he would truly be getting himself into.

 

[odog422]

Its just speculation on your part and nothing else. The only fact we know about is Reeves and Jones both said a cluase was put in there about hours. Reeves says he's never had it and wouldnt agree to it, and Jones says its in all his coaches deals.

I thought I put a big IMO, or "in my opinion," right smack dab in the middle of my post. I guess you missed that part.

 

[theogt]

As for Jimmy and Parcells, we don't know if the clause was even in their contracts so that's moot. And also undermines your argument for why Reeves should have signed it.

We don't know. But we do have what Jerry told us. And I'm not willing to call him a complete liar.

Well, Reeves did say that he had never seen something like that in his 30+ years of coaching, so again, I give him the benefit of the doubt over Jerry and if that's the case, then it is silly.

Since that old man said he had never seen a clause like that in all his years of coaching in the NFL, I'd say it sounds like a wise old man to me who saw the writing on the wall of what he would truly be getting himself into.

I'm sure he's never seen another contract with it in his career. But I'm sure in his career he's only seen about four coaching contracts in his career -- his own.

 

[yimyammer]

Yeah, its popular for everyone to blame Jones for everything, but if its true that its the same clause he's put in every coaches contract, its not his fault.

Do you really believe this was the breaking point? I don't. When Jerry wants someone, especially someone that wants to be here, a stupid hours clause wouldn't stop him.

I wish Jerry would be as demandning of Hamlin or sit his butt.

 

[yimyammer]

What I can't figure out is why did Jerry and Dan reach an impass because of an hours clause.Reeves already had an office and was on the job,if Jerry really didn't want him here it never would have gone that far.I'm thinking there is more to the issue than will ever be known by Ordinary M. Fan.

Craig

agreed, I believe this story as much as the one Jimmy and Jerry spun when they parted ways.

Jerry was trying to save face and as usual insults the intelligence of everyone involved

 

[yimyammer]

Jerry brought him in. He gave him an office. He had him sitting in film review with the coaches. He then hands him his standard coach's contract after they've already worked out the meat of the contract in terms of compensation, title, and role.

And Reeves throws a hissy fit about some minor, irrelevant clause in the contract based on principle.

I don't think that sounds like Jerry pulling the rug because he had cold feet. Sounds like an old man acting like a child because his ego was hurt.

Certainly possible and if true, it's good he's not here because that's obviously not the way to deal with Jerry