Zac's Contract for Longer Than 3 Years??? (Hobson Article)

[Bengalitis]

Sack the Zac already.

If Burrow honestly wants Zac back, sack Burrow too.

[Sled21]

(01-12-2021, 09:44 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: he did just the wrong way

3 comes after 2....

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(01-11-2021, 03:40 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 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)

Well Mike Brown is a unicorn amongst owners, Zac Taylor was not an established coach and since when has Mike Brown cared about looking bad to agents and not about protecting his bottom line?

But such a clause doesn't even have to have come from the Bengals. It could be finding a mutual solution that works for both parties. Zac's agent might have for example wants comfort that his client will get a fair chance and won't be sacked after a year and a half if he gets off to a rocky start because AJ Green and Geno Atkins are injured. The parties could mutually agree that if Zac is terminated in the first 3 years then the Bengals have to pay $10m compensation, but if he's sacked in years 4-5 then it is only $1m compensation. That builds in an incentive for the Bengals not to fire Zac before he's had an goodextended run but allows the Bengals an out if he isn't the man after 3 years. If you're Zac and the choice is between that and a flat 3 year deal which do you take? Or do you just go back to your job as a QB coach?

There are plenty of options open if you have an open mind and are willing to think outside the box.

[GodFather]

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

"Now thats just silly talk"
-Mike Brown

[Bengal Dude]

I remember one of the national reporters tweeted about Zac's contract shortly after he signed with us. He mentioned that Taylor signed a 5 year deal, like all the other 2019 HC hires. Outside of that tweet, I haven't seen any details of Zac's contract reported anywhere.

[BengalsRocker]

(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. 

Maybe MB has figured out his own monetary system for Zac?

"Brown Bucks" "Mikey Money"

[BengalChris]

(01-12-2021, 11:08 AM)Sled21 Wrote: 3 comes after 2....

6 wins, 7 wins, 6 wins - then 2, then 4.

That looks like the wrong direction to me.

 

[Bilbo Saggins]

(01-13-2021, 10:37 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: Maybe MB has figured out his own monetary system for Zac?

"Brown Bucks" "Mikey Money"

He probably pays him in half eaten Little Caesar's crusts like a damn seagull. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(01-13-2021, 10:37 PM)BengalsRocker Wrote: Maybe MB has figured out his own monetary system for Zac?

"Brown Bucks" "Mikey Money"

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(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.

(01-11-2021, 12:41 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 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, 01:13 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: 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 **** !

Agreed, just ask Andy Reid and the Chiefs. They aren't happy and they are winning those close games...