It's just a word but fired carries a conotation with it that not renewing his contract doesn't. It's not as harsh, that's why people choose to use the word "laid off" instead of fired. And some are given the opportunity to resign instead of being fired.I have an understanding of contract law. If an NFL coach had a clause in his contract that would result in the team having to pay a substantial sum if they fired him 10 days before his contract expired, then the owner and his attorneys are morons because that would be a poorly written contract.
And I get your point. I am saying that's an idiotic way to handle this. I actually agree that Jerry can't quit Garrett. But dragging this out because he doesn't want to fire him but just let his contract expire is moronic. Because anyone with a brain knows that if Garrett's contract isn't renewed, he was fired. Only Jerry Jones could try to rationalize that distinction, I guess.
It is kinda crazy how most people get so worked up. I realized years ago that no matter how passionate I was my paycheck stays the same.You make a good point! Look at us sitting around making demands. *we* don't run this team or tell anyone how to run it. And they don't ask us. We simply follow...or not follow. Like I said, we could just go play golf or sledding or hunting for a few days instead. Let it play out. Instead we act like yipping puppies.
I thought it would be fun to let everyone guess at why they think no decision has been made yet.
My theory is that *IF* the Cowboys are indeed not re-signing Garrett, the guy they want is on the staff of a playoff team, likely a highly seeded team with a bye week, so they know they can let Garrett finish out his contract and avoid actually "firing" him while still going after the guy they want once that happens.
What is your guess?
It is kinda crazy how most people get so worked up. I realized years ago that no matter how passionate I was my paycheck stays the same.
You could very well be correct that it is one of the coordinators instead of a HC, but Jerry's ego is pretty large and be it money or draft picks or knowing a clause allows someone out of their contract is something I am not privy to. I am just speculating on why Jerry would wait, and PO the fans, potentially losing $$$$, unless he thinks the big splash would bring in more than he would lose. He could just say Jason isn't going to be the head coach next year and it would be in the papers one day with lots of speculation and him do whatever he wants with Jasons new contract, but he is waiting, and keeping the media glued to everything Dallas is doing right now. So since he is a business man, I suspect $$$$ is talking somewhere.He may want them but giving up 2 1sts on a team needing those picks for a HC is dumb.
Don't know Belichick's situation contractually but Zimmer has 2020 left and Payton just signed a new fat deal. I could see Booger being more interested in Payton's asst HC, Dan Campbell or Zimmer's OC, Stefanski, or Belichick's OC than the HC's.
I doubt Dallas is trying to build a Rooney defense. But I do think there is a legitimate chance, based on the past, the NFL could decide an interview isn't enough if one could reasonably believe a decision on a coach had already been made. In some ways, the league looks bad for allowing these clearly frivolous interviews to repeat their requirement. And Dallas is a favorite "example," where Goodell is concerned.Great post, I do think all of this is theater and fans are cats chasing a lazer pointer around the room.
I had the same thought about Werder's article - its a shot across the bow from someone at the level of Stephen or McClay. But Kris Richard was the Rooney Rule guy for the Giants, the Cowboys could also do a quick meeting with him to meet the requirement.
this is basically whats happened
they mutually decided to not announce the departure until the 14th where they both can say it was a mutual and amicable breakup..it makes sense no need to say we fired our Hc when his deal ends the in 10days..
However enough players and media have heard hes not being resigned says hes gone..
They didn't do anything to Oakland when they brought Chucky back. Everyone knew he was the next coach.I doubt Dallas is trying to build a Rooney defense. But I do think there is a legitimate chance, based on the past, the NFL could decide an interview isn't enough if one could reasonably believe a decision on a coach had already been made. In some ways, the league looks bad for allowing these clearly frivolous interviews to repeat their requirement. And Dallas is a favorite "example," where Goodell is concerned.
Really don't think that is a reason for this Garrett delay, but it's not an implausible thought process.
I suspect the actual reason is the simplest -- Jerry Jones loves Garrett and doesn't want to say publicly the man has been fired. He can simply let the contract lapse.
We can all argue the rest of our lives that it's a distinction without a difference, but I kind of understand Jones treating it as a matter of principle. Technically, it wouldn't be a firing.
Whew, Oh Migh, That made a lot of sense and gave me some relief!!! lol haha heehee Otherwise I was think Jerrah need to be committed to a mental hospital!I thought it would be fun to let everyone guess at why they think no decision has been made yet.
My theory is that *IF* the Cowboys are indeed not re-signing Garrett, the guy they want is on the staff of a playoff team, likely a highly seeded team with a bye week, so they know they can let Garrett finish out his contract and avoid actually "firing" him while still going after the guy they want once that happens.
What is your guess?
I get that, and they haven't done anything, or nearly as much, to several players whose sins seemed to equal or exceed (at least in proof) Elliott's. Goodell could say -- this is where I draw the line. Again, I don't think he would. I'm simply saying it's not outlandish to consider the possibility.They didn't do anything to Oakland when they brought Chucky back. Everyone knew he was the next coach.
It's just a word but fired carries a conotation with it that not renewing his contract doesn't. It's not as harsh, that's why people choose to use the word "laid off" instead of fired. And some are given the opportunity to resign instead of being fired.
The fact remains, it's the same message, you are not wanted. I agree, it's semnatics but completely understandable in this situation, these men go back 28 years and are as close as family.
Some as so pissed at Garrett that they want that "fired" attached to his name. They need to be content with the information Garrett actually wanted to stay, or said he did. They will just have to be happy with not giving the child candy instead of stealing it.