Jump to content

The one person hurt the most by us not hiring Spags is...


Absolute
 Share

Recommended Posts

His team denied him the first interview which would have given us a chance to interview him again this week. That in itself made it impossible to wait on him. We would have to hope that OC/DC choices were willing to join the staff, get the staff together after missing the Senior Bowl and maybe even the combine depending on when he interviewed the second time.

It's just too long to wait on an uncertain thing. We had a competent coach with loads of coaching experience and we picked him. I think we made the right move for this team.

Don't blame the FO, blame the Giants!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't blame the Giants either - they were just trying to keep all of their coaches and players focused on winning in the playoffs.

I do, however, blame the NFL for having such a stupid rule. It really does make it very difficult for the coordinators and assistants on a superbowl team to become head coaches if they can't have an interview until after it's over. This is especially true for teams that play on wild card weekend, since there is no time guaranteed for other franchises to interview their coaches before the playoffs start. The interview rules do need to be changed.

Just look at what happened to Ron Rivera last season - the Bears didn't want to keep him, and there were no positions open around the league for D-coordinators. So he ended up having to take the LB coaches job in SD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Blacksburg! The NFL is to blame, also. That rule is dumb and until we tried to get a coach in the Super Bowl, I had not even heard of that rule. I thought that you could interview coaches whether it was the 1st, 2nd, etc time during bye weeks regardless of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted them to at least interview Spagnuolo, too. But for the record, I believe that he told Coughlin and co. that he didn't want to interview at the time we asked. He wanted to concentrate on the task at hand. That didn't bother me much, as that is a quality you would want in a HC. It did kind of bother me that they didn't wait and interview him, but I am not disappointed w/the hire of Smith. Let's face it - The Falcons could have and already have done much worse than this. I know, that's hard to say w/out any wins, but at the end of the day ATL-75 is the only true "Ms. Cleo" we have on the board. :P

We'll see how it pans out, but I think this is leaps and bounds better than the Quitrino hire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draftnut57 (1/24/2008)
Wrong , Spag didn't want to be interviewed untill after the SB , He may now regret that.

You know, everyone of these guys has agents who can talk with a team off the record and I feel there was something conveyed to Atlanta by his agent or some inside info that told us Spags was not a sure thing to come on board.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

texasbirdfan (1/24/2008)
Draftnut57 (1/24/2008)
Wrong , Spag didn't want to be interviewed untill after the SB , He may now regret that.

You know, everyone of these guys has agents who can talk with a team off the record and I feel there was something conveyed to Atlanta by his agent or some inside info that told us Spags was not a sure thing to come on board.

.

I agree. I think they knew something that maybe they couldn't say they knew. Even if he had been interviewed, I'm not so sure he would have taken the job. Not a bad gig at all to be a DC on a SB team. And he will probably get paid well for his 2007 performance next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlacksburgHokie (1/24/2008)
I can't blame the Giants either - they were just trying to keep all of their coaches and players focused on winning in the playoffs.

I do, however, blame the NFL for having such a stupid rule. It really does make it very difficult for the coordinators and assistants on a superbowl team to become head coaches if they can't have an interview until after it's over. This is especially true for teams that play on wild card weekend, since there is no time guaranteed for other franchises to interview their coaches before the playoffs start. The interview rules do need to be changed.

Just look at what happened to Ron Rivera last season - the Bears didn't want to keep him, and there were no positions open around the league for D-coordinators. So he ended up having to take the LB coaches job in SD.

The NFL actually amended the rule. Originally you couldn't interview ANY assistants on a team until their season was over. No interviews duing bye weeks or the week before the Superbowl.

And about Riveria... I just find it odd that minority candidates like he and Singletary are all the rage when interviewing. People even say "they will be a great head coach" and crap like that. However the next year when jobs open up an entirely different set of minority candidates are interviewed and the "hot" minority candidates from the previous year don't even get a phone call.

That's a little odd to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

texasbirdfan (1/24/2008)
I was out of the loop yesterday, but there had to be a better reason why we changed. I think we got word he may not make the move even if we waited. Tom C is possibly going out in NY soon and Spags might have been told by ownership he was the heir apparent. Like Cladwell in Indy and Garrett in Dallas
they cant do that. the only way it can be done is if it is written in his contrct that he will be the repalcement for the current coach. Since this year was Spags first as DC, I can pretty much guarantee there was no such language in place. Now maybe if they sign him to a new deal with that language they can make it fly....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1989fan (1/24/2008)
texasbirdfan (1/24/2008)
I was out of the loop yesterday, but there had to be a better reason why we changed. I think we got word he may not make the move even if we waited. Tom C is possibly going out in NY soon and Spags might have been told by ownership he was the heir apparent. Like Cladwell in Indy and Garrett in Dallas
they cant do that. the only way it can be done is if it is written in his contrct that he will be the repalcement for the current coach. Since this year was Spags first as DC, I can pretty much guarantee there was no such language in place. Now maybe if they sign him to a new deal with that language they can make it fly....

Ah, to be young and naive again. Can't? Handshakes and verbals still work in the higher levels of management like a fraternity of sportsmen.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

texasbirdfan (1/24/2008)
Ah, to be young and naive again. Can't? Handshakes and verbals still work in the higher levels of management like a fraternity of sportsmen.

Naive? If you think a team is gonna go and break the Rooney rule and have the bad press and possible league punishment to do a handshake deal, then I am def not the naive one.

It is easy to say Spags you will be "the guy", but it cant be done legally w/o the contract language in place. Period. Sure they could give him the job, but not w/o either the contract or the required interviewing process.

If I am young and naive, this must be another case of " elderly gone wrong again" thinking that rules simply dont matter in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Falcons were in the playoffs and teams looking for new leadership were diverting our assistance coach(s) focus and time away from such important game(s), most of us would be angry about it. It is even worse in college where it appears that the head coach and/or assistant coaches for about half the bowl teams seem to be more interested in getting richer than preparing their teams for the games. Probably about 10% of the teams in bowl games end up with a interim or new head coach. It has gotten ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1989fan (1/24/2008)
texasbirdfan (1/24/2008)
Ah, to be young and naive again. Can't? Handshakes and verbals still work in the higher levels of management like a fraternity of sportsmen.

Naive? If you think a team is gonna go and break the Rooney rule and have the bad press and possible league punishment to do a handshake deal, then I am def not the naive one.

It is easy to say Spags you will be "the guy", but it cant be done legally w/o the contract language in place. Period. Sure they could give him the job, but not w/o either the contract or the required interviewing process.

Naive? If you think a team is gonna go and break the Rooney rule and have the bad press and possible league punishment to do a handshake deal, then I am def not the naive one.

It is easy to say Spags you will be "the guy", but it cant be done legally w/o the contract language in place. Period. Sure they could give him the job, but not w/o either the contract or the required interviewing process.

If I am young and naive, this must be another case of " elderly gone wrong again" thinking that rules simply dont matter in this situation.

If I am young and naive, this must be another case of " elderly gone wrong again" thinking that rules simply dont matter in this situation.

Dude if you don't think Cowher doesn't have some things lined up for 2009, or Caldwell won't succeed Dungy, or Garrett won't take over for Wade, you my friend are bucking the trend- it is all over the news and in print.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...