Changing coaching staffs isn't as easy for teams as it once was

Changing coaching staffs isn't as easy for teams as it once was
[www.nfl.com]
By Jason La Canfora NFL.com
NFL Network Insider

As we get closer to the official start of the offseason it seems more likely there is going to be a nominal amount of turnover, at best, in the coaching and management circles.

Now is as good a time as any to explain some of the reasons why.

Among coaches and personnel people, it's been a topic of discussion for weeks, and while there is a perception among the general public about the relative ease with which a staff can be put together, and with which coaches and executives can move from one organization to another, the reality is that it's become increasingly difficult to assemble a desired staff for myriad reasons. It's also a reality that some teams will decide not to make changes to their staff at least in part based on the inability to land those candidates deemed better.

"No one's really that mobile," one longtime personnel executive said. "Everybody is pretty restricted."

Unless a coach already under contract is being interviewed for a head coaching job, or a personnel exec is being interviewed for a promotion to general manager that would involve final say on personnel, their existing team can block any meeting. Many out there think that only a lateral move can be blocked. That is not true on the coaching or personnel side.

Last offseason, for instance, the Redskins blocked special teams coach Danny Smith from interviewing for the same position with the Packers, and also blocked secondary coach Jerry Gray from interviewing for the defensive coordinator position with the Texans, which would have been an obvious promotion. The only reason the Browns were able to hire personnel executive George Kokinis from the Ravens is that he was promised final say on the roster in Cleveland, which he did not have in Baltimore (now, whether he actually got that authority over coach Eric Mangini in Cleveland is an entirely different matter).

Back in the day, it used to be you offered a promotion, you got your guy in town for an interview, and he got a deal done. That is no longer the case. Throw in the fact that the economy has been down, and, after the 2010 season there is no labor security -- the CBA expires and who knows what the next model will look like -- and thus some teams are hesitant to blow out existing staff only to bring in new ones with the possibility that there could be a work stoppage of some sort in 2011. None of that promotes a whole lot of movement.

There is also the matter of college coaches continuing to make higher salaries, and in many cases without having to work the kind of hours that are the norm in the NFL. It used to be that the superior benefits and pensions were a premier drawing card for the pro teams. But with those being cut for coaches by several teams in the last year, some top assistants, unable to interview for coordinator jobs and not quite deemed head coach candidates, are looking harder at college positions. Gray, for instance, was highly interested in the Memphis job, according to league sources, and would have taken it (it appeared to be his, but the university went in another direction).

Furthermore, many teams are inserting language into contracts that include coaches having to take significant paycuts should there be a work stoppage in 2011. All the more reason college might look like a better alternative to some. However, according to league sources, many teams are also inserting language preventing movement even to the college ranks for head coaching jobs, and, yes, some contracts even exclude a move to coach a high school, according to sources.

As the pensions have been cut, much of whatever burgeoning clout the nascent professional coaching union had, has diminished.

All of that creates a more static environment and makes it tougher for bright rising coaches and executives to get the chance to make that next step. And sometimes the only way to get them is by offering a drastic promotion all the way to the top, which is a gamble.

"It's become restrictive, and I'm not sure that it's really benefitting the owners," one executive said. "You can't say it's cut down on costs, because for the most part, the salaries keep going up. That's why in a year like this, I think you'll see a lot of rehashed coaches who were out of it, and it's also why you've seen so many young guys get a shot. That's why you'll see a secondary coach interviewing for a head coach, because you can't get him away as a coordinator.

"I don't think that's the best trend for our league. Nobody's being trained properly, and you're seeing younger and younger guys in those jobs, and they'll make less than some other guys, but the league is becoming less experienced because of it."

---

Best,
Laram