jrry32 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Just now, mission27 said: http://www.espn.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4811430/why-josh-mcdaniels-decided-to-stay-with-the-patriots This is the risk you run interviewing and committing to a coach whose team is still in the playoffs. It being reported today isn't convincing. It's damage control. 3 minutes ago, mission27 said: If they thought he was the right guy, and he told them "I'm interested but I can't commit until after our season is over" then why not? Because you end up last in line for a guy who isn't giving you any assurances. 3 minutes ago, Troy Brown said: Earlier in this thread See above. If it were reported weeks ago, it would obviously be believable. It being reported today makes it less than credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texansfan713 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Dont like the Colts but McDaniels did them so dirty. SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Brown Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Just now, jrry32 said: It being reported today isn't convincing. It's damage control. Because you end up last in line for a guy who isn't giving you any assurances. See above. If it were reported weeks ago, it would obviously be believable. It being reported today makes it less than credible. lol, ok, if you say so. the patriots are known for giving out information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, wcblack34 said: Partial performance by hiring his preferred assistant coaches. Equitable and promissory estoppel would also apply. There are many theories that could remove this from the statute of frauds and entitle the Colts to a recovery. That's just off the top of my head. Again, they don't have to win to "win". Again, and @jrry32 can correct me if I'm wrong, but McDaniels did not and in fact could not hire assistants. He had a similar verbal agreement to the one he had with the Colts in place to hire assistants, but there was no hire formally made, unless it was made by the Colts ahead of McDaniels signing his own contract (which is not the practice that is SOP anywhere else in the NFL), because McDaniels was still under contract with the Patriots organization - otherwise he would not have been able to coach the AFCCG and the Super Bowl. He was not an agent of the Colts organization, therefore he could not conduct business on behalf of the Colts organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Just now, jrry32 said: They've already undercut a promissory estoppel claim by saying that they're keeping those assistants on the staff no matter what. Partial performance seems even less likely to succeed. They do have to win to win. Otherwise, they're just wasting their money for another L. McDaniels makes promise. Colts hire coaches relying on McDaniels' promise. McDaniels backs out. Colts have changed their position to their detriment by signing contracts with guys they would not have hired otherwise. Stuck with those contracts, missed out with other guys they may have wanted, could get sued if they break those contracts. Not difficult to show a detriment there. And if you make McDaniels fight a lawsuit all the way through training camp and beyond, depose every member of the Patriots' front office and coaching staff when they should be preparing for the upcoming season, heck even Tom Brady, you can certainly make it worth the money you're spending on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncoSojia Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, The LBC said: Again, and @jrry32 can correct me if I'm wrong, but McDaniels did not and in fact could not hire assistants. He had a similar verbal agreement to the one he had with the Colts in place to hire assistants, but there was no hire formally made, unless it was made by the Colts ahead of McDaniels signing his own contract (which is not the practice that is SOP anywhere else in the NFL), because McDaniels was still under contract with the Patriots organization - otherwise he would not have been able to coach the AFCCG and the Super Bowl. He was not an agent of the Colts organization, therefore he could not conduct business on behalf of the Colts organization. He doesn't have to. If he tells the Colts, "I accept your offer, here are the coaches I want to have in place, hire them." And the Colts do so based on that promise, the Colts have a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagahide13 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 11 minutes ago, childofpudding said: I mean, it happens every single day in business. An employee gets hired elsewhere, gives his notice, then the company he's leaving gives him a matching or superior offer, and the employee decides to stay. It's usually not seen as some huge slimeball move. That sounds dangerously close to leveraging an offer, which actually is considered "a slimeball move." People do it constantly, but again, that's poor ethics. It's hard to judge sincerity, but I suppose that's where I personally would draw the line... The way you've described it sounds perfectly fine, but again, it's close and entirely depends on intent. Mission pointed out that McD is a human that had a lot on his plate leading up to this decision. We've had plenty of time, while he's actually only had a couple of days. That has a lot of validity, and I (for some reason) wasn't giving McD that benefit. I think that's something that all of his detractors might want to factor in before we continue to hate on him. I also remember him well from the days of absolutely ruining the Broncos from top to bottom, and I'm absolutely sure that colors my opinion of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Just now, wcblack34 said: McDaniels makes promise. Colts hire coaches relying on McDaniels' promise. McDaniels backs out. Colts have changed their position to their detriment by signing contracts with guys they would not have hired otherwise. Stuck with those contracts, missed out with other guys they may have wanted, could get sued if they break those contracts. Not difficult to show a detriment there. And if you make McDaniels fight a lawsuit all the way through training camp and beyond, depose every member of the Patriots' front office and coaching staff when they should be preparing for the upcoming season, heck even Tom Brady, you can certainly make it worth the money you're spending on it. Colts have already said they're keeping the assistants. If they were going to have to fire them, there would be grounds for a promissory estoppel argument. However, the fact that they're keeping them means that they are suffering no injury. The Patriots' lawyers would just fight out discovery battles to limit the scope of who could be deposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, The LBC said: Again, and @jrry32 can correct me if I'm wrong, but McDaniels did not and in fact could not hire assistants. He had a similar verbal agreement to the one he had with the Colts in place to hire assistants, but there was no hire formally made, unless it was made by the Colts ahead of McDaniels signing his own contract (which is not the practice that is SOP anywhere else in the NFL), because McDaniels was still under contract with the Patriots organization - otherwise he would not have been able to coach the AFCCG and the Super Bowl. He was not an agent of the Colts organization, therefore he could not conduct business on behalf of the Colts organization. Then how come Matt Eberflus is under contract with the Colts due to McDaniels choosing him? Because McDaniels did, as an ambassador of the Colts organization, convince him to be his defensive coordinator. Eberflus was connected with the Colts literally three weeks ago, when it was reported McDaniels offered him the DC gig. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: Colts have already said they're keeping the assistants. If they were going to have to fire them, there would be grounds for a promissory estoppel argument. However, the fact that they're keeping them means that they are suffering no injury. The Patriots' lawyers would just fight out discovery battles to limit the scope of who could be deposed. If they can show they passed over anyone they would have otherwise wanted, and could have gotten, because of McDaniels' promise, they can maintain the claim. That is a detriment. It doesn't matter if they keep the other guys. They could fight them out. But there isn't a court in the land that isn't going to believe that BB, Kraft, Brady and several others wouldn't have information that might be relevant to the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 This is...just wow. They should be allowed to release Asst coaches, at least with their approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, nagahide13 said: That sounds dangerously close to leveraging an offer, which actually is considered "a slimeball move." People do it constantly, but again, that's poor ethics. It's hard to judge sincerity, but I suppose that's where I personally would draw the line... The way you've described it sounds perfectly fine, but again, it's close and entirely depends on intent. Mission pointed out that McD is a human that had a lot on his plate leading up to this decision. We've had plenty of time, while he's actually only had a couple of days. That has a lot of validity, and I (for some reason) wasn't giving McD that benefit. I think that's something that all of his detractors might want to factor in before we continue to hate on him. I also remember him well from the days of absolutely ruining the Broncos from top to bottom, and I'm absolutely sure that colors my opinion of him. For sure. And my opinion of him is colored because he's been successful as an OC with the Patriots. This definitely could be a situation where McDaniels disingenuously committed to the Colts in order to leverage a better offer from the Patriots, but it doesn't seem like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, BroncoSojia said: Now that's crappy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, mse326 said: Umm...Jim Caldwell is a minority. That is a pretty significant difference in terms of the Rooney Rule If there's a noted succession plan in place with an internal employee, the Rooney rule isn't required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts