FL Packer
Cheesehead
From Profootball Talk.com
The decision of the Packers to give coach Mike Sherman a contract extension of only two years essentially means, in our view, that new G.M. Ted Thompson has "hired" Sherman pursuant to the standard three-year contract that many newly-minted head coaches get.
And it also means that if Sherman doesn't keep the team competitive and/or push it back to prominence within the next couple of seasons, Thompson will have the ability to make another head-coaching hire.
It's a common, and unfortunate, phenomenon in the NFL. The General Manager's accountability is far less immediate than the head coach's. And the G.M. typically can get away with ******** the piooch with the first head coach that he hires (see Donahoe, Tom), even though the guy who hired the head coach that tanked should at least bear some responsibility for the failure.
This dynamic, in our view, is one of the main reasons why most teams can't, and won't, duplicate the success of a franchise like the Patriots. In New England, the coaching staff and the front office are on a leash of identical length. Thus, neither department has anything to gain by blaming the other if/when the thing goes bad. (If it ever does.) Instead, everyone works together because either everyone succeeds together, or everyone fails together.
So, in Green Bay, Sherman's three-year deal means that if the team tanks, Mike takes the fall -- and Thompson gets a do-over.
The decision of the Packers to give coach Mike Sherman a contract extension of only two years essentially means, in our view, that new G.M. Ted Thompson has "hired" Sherman pursuant to the standard three-year contract that many newly-minted head coaches get.
And it also means that if Sherman doesn't keep the team competitive and/or push it back to prominence within the next couple of seasons, Thompson will have the ability to make another head-coaching hire.
It's a common, and unfortunate, phenomenon in the NFL. The General Manager's accountability is far less immediate than the head coach's. And the G.M. typically can get away with ******** the piooch with the first head coach that he hires (see Donahoe, Tom), even though the guy who hired the head coach that tanked should at least bear some responsibility for the failure.
This dynamic, in our view, is one of the main reasons why most teams can't, and won't, duplicate the success of a franchise like the Patriots. In New England, the coaching staff and the front office are on a leash of identical length. Thus, neither department has anything to gain by blaming the other if/when the thing goes bad. (If it ever does.) Instead, everyone works together because either everyone succeeds together, or everyone fails together.
So, in Green Bay, Sherman's three-year deal means that if the team tanks, Mike takes the fall -- and Thompson gets a do-over.