I caught this in the article that was shared the other day, and I completely forgot to share it. Check out the following exhange (Reader question is posted in bold, Hobson response follows.)

With Zac Taylor returning with only one year on his contract, how likely is it the Bengals will be able to recruit quality assistant coaches to work with a head coach whose contract may not be renewed unless significant improvement in wins? Doug Fecher, Hamilton, OH

DOUG: I'm not sure you've got the right contract parameters there, but there are examples past and present of coaches getting it going in the third year.

It sure seems to me that this assumption many of us have had (that Zac's deal was for 3 years) is wrong.

There's a lot of ways of Hobson could have answered this. He could have all together avoided, or sidestepped the contract portion. Or could have used something like "I don't know" or "It's not public how long..." I don't think he replies this way unless he actually knows it's longer.

Remember, no details about this deal have ever been made. It sure sounds like he may have been given a 4, or God forbid a 5 year deal.

I don't know that this changes that much, as I still think Taylor gets axed if he has another 5 win or less season. But with the way this team has operated in the past it definitely makes things a little more cloudy. I could see him getting another year going 7-10 (17 game season) if he is indeed signed for another year.

(01-11-2021, 11:53 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I caught this in the article that was shared the other day, and I completely forgot to share it.  Check out the following exhange (Reader question is posted in bold, Hobson response follows.)

With Zac Taylor returning with only one year on his contract, how likely is it the Bengals will be able to recruit quality assistant coaches to work with a head coach whose contract may not be renewed unless significant improvement in wins? Doug Fecher, Hamilton, OH

DOUG: I'm not sure you've got the right contract parameters there, but there are examples past and present of coaches getting it going in the third year.

It sure seems to me that this assumption many of us have had (that Zac's deal was for 3 years) is wrong.

There's a lot of ways of Hobson could have answered this.  He could have all together avoided, or sidestepped the contract portion.  Or could have used something like "I don't know" or "It's not public how long..."  I don't think he replies this way unless he actually knows it's longer.

Remember, no details about this deal have ever been made.  It sure sounds like he may have been given a 4, or God forbid a 5 year deal.

I don't know that this changes that much, as I still think Taylor gets axed if he has another 5 win or less season.  But with the way this team has operated in the past it definitely makes things a little more cloudy.  I could see him getting another year going 7-10 (17 game season) if he is indeed signed for another year.

any thing short of a playoff game should be grounds for dismissal at this point

I really hope we set the bar high this season. We showed, when Burrow was QB, that our team is good enough to win games with him at QB. If we lose/tie 6 games by a score or less for the third consecutive season (it was 8 in 2019, but you get the idea), I see no reason to keep ZT as our head coach. He can't close out a game to save his life.

(01-11-2021, 12:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I really hope we set the bar high this season. We showed, when Burrow was QB, that our team is good enough to win games with him at QB.

I’m sorry but I can’t get on board with this. Your record is who you are. If a team is good enough to win games they will win, not just come close. There are many commentators who believe losing by one score or less means a team is getting close to being competitive but this is backwards. Ask any respected coach and they’ll tell you losing lots of one score games is a bad sign — and it is. It means a coach cannot prepare his team to dominate and it means a team cannot close the deal.

(01-11-2021, 12:32 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: I’m sorry but I can’t get on board with this. Your record is who you are. If a team is good enough to win games they will win, not just come close.  There are many commentators who believe losing by one score or less means a team is getting close to being competitive but this is backwards.  Ask any respected coach and they’ll tell you losing lots of one score games is a bad sign — and it is.  It means a coach cannot prepare his team to dominate and it means a team cannot close the deal.

Yea, losing 1 score games is a coaching problem, rather than a personnel problem. I'm sorry if my post did not make that clear enough.

(01-11-2021, 11:58 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: any thing short of a playoff game should be grounds for dismissal at this point

Well the pressure is up s notch more now that Browns gave the Steelers  a beat down yesterday and have established themselves as a possible contender for Superbowl....while the Bengals continue to swirl around in the wind.   

(01-11-2021, 12:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I really hope we set the bar high this season. We showed, when Burrow was QB, that our team is good enough to win games with him at QB. If we lose/tie 6 games by a score or less for the third consecutive season (it was 8 in 2019, but you get the idea), I see no reason to keep ZT as our head coach. He can't close out a game to save his life.

(01-11-2021, 12:32 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: I’m sorry but I can’t get on board with this. Your record is who you are. If a team is good enough to win games they will win, not just come close.  There are many commentators who believe losing by one score or less means a team is getting close to being competitive but this is backwards.  Ask any respected coach and they’ll tell you losing lots of one score games is a bad sign — and it is.  It means a coach cannot prepare his team to dominate and it means a team cannot close the deal.

Yes the whole we lost x number of close games by y points or less, which means you're almost good is a bunch of BS. 

As far as ZT having a longer contract **** !

I can't remember who, but a poster had mentioned some weeks back that they thought that full coaching class that year all had 5-year contracts. Something they'd read in an article I think. None of us for sure, but the whole 3 year thing seems to be something that's morphed from the desire of people to give him three years, and the fact that the Bengals didn't fire him after this season. Him having a 5-year contract wouldn't surprise me at all.

It was a gamble either way by the org. You could sign a 2-3 year contract and risk that he hits it big and then have to make a big payout to keep him, or you could sign a 4-5 year and hope that you've got him locked down longer, but it's money down the drain if he doesn't perform. Not sure how the cost/risk analysis would play out in terms of which saves you more money, but I suspect it's cheaper the way they did it since he was unproven coming in.

(01-11-2021, 12:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I really hope we set the bar high this season. We showed, when Burrow was QB, that our team is good enough to win games with him at QB. If we lose/tie 6 games by a score or less for the third consecutive season (it was 8 in 2019, but you get the idea), I see no reason to keep ZT as our head coach. He can't close out a game to save his life.

Not sure....

2019  2 wins
2020 with burrow   2 wins
2020 without burrow  2 wins

So im not sure Burrow is the magic answer for ZT

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 5 year deal.

I would be surprised if it was a 5 year deal with no outs.

(01-11-2021, 02:09 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 5 year deal.

I would be surprised if it was a 5 year deal with no outs.

God help us all...smh

(01-11-2021, 02:06 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Not sure....

2019  2 wins
2020 with burrow   2 wins
2020 without burrow  2 wins

So im not sure Burrow is the magic answer for ZT

I'm not sure there's enough magic in the world to fix ZT ?

(01-11-2021, 02:09 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: I would be surprised if it was a 5 year deal with no outs.

There are no "outs" with coaches.  Unlike players, their contracts are fully guaranteed.

If you sign a coach for X amount of years then you're on the hook for that total regardless of whether or not he stays for the contract's entirity. 

(01-11-2021, 02:22 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: There are no "outs" with coaches.  Unlike players, their contracts are fully guaranteed.

If you sign a coach for X amount of years then you're on the hook for that total regardless of whether or not he stays for the contract's entirity. 

right thats why John Grudens 10 year 100mil contract was such a huge deal

(01-11-2021, 02:22 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: There are no "outs" with coaches.  Unlike players, their contracts are fully guaranteed.

If you sign a coach for X amount of years then you're on the hook for that total regardless of whether or not he stays for the contract's entirity. 

Whilst coaching contracts aren't the same as playing contracts when players can be cut there are a number of ways a smart lawyer could achieve a similar outcome.

Unlike player contracts which will have to comply with union requirements, NFL salary cap regulations and the like there would be a lot more scope for flexibility negotiating a HC's contract. This could be anything from key performance targets, break clauses, agreed damages, rolling contracts. We know the type of legal agreement Mike Brown negotiated with the County for the stadium which contains various outs and required the county to install holograms etc. Whilst obviously smaller, this is still a multi-million dollar deal and I'd expect Mike Brown to protect his own bottom line accordingly.

(01-11-2021, 02:58 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: Whilst coaching contracts aren't the same as playing contracts when players can be cut there are a number of ways a smart lawyer could achieve a similar outcome.

Unlike player contracts which will have to comply with union requirements, NFL salary cap regulations and the like there would be a lot more scope for flexibility negotiating a HC's contract. This could be anything from key performance targets, break clauses, agreed damages, rolling contracts. We know the type of legal agreement Mike Brown negotiated with the County for the stadium which contains various outs and required the county to install holograms etc. Whilst obviously smaller, this is still a multi-million dollar deal and I'd expect Mike Brown to protect his own bottom line accordingly.

I mean, that's just not the way coaching contracts are structured in the NFL (performance targets, break clauses, damages, etc.) 

If Mike Brown were to somehow work in that language into a deal he's be a unicorn in terms of uniqueness.  And I would imagine any coach and any agent would immediately be turned off from negotiations.

There's only two ways to get out of paying a coach that I'm aware of:

1.) Firing with cause. (Think of Al Davis vs. Josh McDaniels)  If the team can prove that a coach broke some rules, broke the law or somehow violated their contract, then they can recoup money remaining.  This involves lawyers and the onus is on the team to prove it's case.

2.) Any new employment's salary will be deducted from remaining dollars.  This is to prevent double-dipping, and is much more common.  Ex:  Coach makes 3 million a year and has 2 years remaining when fired.  Coach takes OC/DC/Position job where he makes 1 million.  Team owes the difference of 2 million (3 mil guaranteed minus 1 mil in new salary).

Maybe you're right, maybe Mike has sneaked some crazy things into his negotiations but I find that highly unlikely.  There is no way an established coach like Marvin Lewis, nor his agent, would have allowed that language to exist in any of his extensions.  And if they tried to place into Zac Taylor's contract I'm sure his agent would be spreading the word. (It would look VERY bad for the Bengals)

I've always been under the impression that it's a 5 year deal from the get go. I don't remember where I read this, but I'd be surprised if it was less than 5 years.

(01-11-2021, 04:15 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I've always been under the impression that it's a 5 year deal from the get go. I don't remember where I read this,  but I'd be surprised if it was less than 5 years.

That was my thought as well, a 5 year contract, and my expectation has always been he would at least be given 3 to turn things around.

(01-11-2021, 05:14 PM)Sled21 Wrote: That was my thought as well, a 5 year contract, and my expectation has always been he would at least be given 3 to turn things around.

he did just the wrong way