NFL expected to pass a rule that prevents another Josh McDaniels situation

[Loyal]

You think Kraft is the first owner to offer a coach a sweeter deal to stay?
Good grief. Putting blame on Kraft is pathetic. McDaniels is a prick and weaseled out on a commitment. Period.
This is a single occurrence vs an nfl history of hundreds of coaching changes

We will disagree. Any rule that comes out that restricts such behavior comes from the other 31 owners, pathetic or not who don't want to be sand bagged in the future. We are done here.

 

[Merlin]

What teams?
What team ever complained about it?

I've heard that exact statement many times on NFL radio. And I've hear it discussed in relation to that interest driving it being put forth in previous years but it didn't get enough traction/votes.

Not sure why that point is even worth arguing though, tbh. Before you ask I don't know who voted for what, who tried to levy getting it done, etc. Don't even really care in this discussion either tbh, not a big deal to me. Just think there's a lot of folks making the rule all about McDaniels when it's something that is past due. So yeah, we'll obviously agree to disagree on this one man.

 

[dieterbrock]

I've heard that exact statement many times on NFL radio. And I've hear it discussed in relation to that interest driving it being put forth in previous years but it didn't get enough traction/votes.

Not sure why that point is even worth arguing though, tbh. Before you ask I don't know who voted for what, who tried to levy getting it done, etc. Don't even really care in this discussion either tbh, not a big deal to me. Just think there's a lot of folks making the rule all about McDaniels when it's something that is past due. So yeah, we'll obviously agree to disagree on this one man.

I have never heard a specific team complain or a specific coach. If you have an example, I’d love to hear it

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Untrue.

Josh McDaniels had accomplices in Bill Bellicheck and Bob Kraft, ie, the Patriots organization. So 1/32nd of the NFL did this. If 1/32nd of the total US population committed an act that the other 31/32nd of the population objected to, would a law/ordinance etc, be inappropriate? My answer would be that it's appropriate.

It's not a legal issue and doesn't require a rule. One coach and his accomplices backed out of an agreement once in several decades. I think there is no need for the rule.