Shanahan to the Cowboys?

[Trashman]

Sources: Jones might pursue Shanahan as coach :eek:
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

Updated: January 4, 2009, 2:01 AM ET
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones hasn't changed his mind about firing coach Wade Phillips, but Mike Shanahan would be the leading candidate if he ever does make a move, according to team sources.

Mike Shanahan, a fan of Tony Romo, could end up with the Cowboys in 2010.
Shanahan's unexpected firing Tuesday by the Denver Broncos has prompted Jones to give "thought" to hiring Shanahan as the future Dallas coach -- even more so than Bill Cowher or Mike Holmgren -- but 2010 may be more timely than 2009, the sources said.

The story was first reported Saturday morning on ESPN's NFL Countdown show.

Jones and Shanahan have had a strong relationship and share a mutual admiration for Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo. Shanahan offered Romo more money than Jones did in 2003 when Romo was an undrafted free agent out of Eastern Illinois, Shanahan's alma mater.

Also appealing to Jones, Shanahan would not carry an exorbitant price tag. Because his contract had three years remaining, Broncos owner Pat Bowlen owes Shanahan $20 million. Any owner who hires Shanahan could pay him a lower salary than the estimated $7 million a year he's owed and Bowlen would be obligated to pay the balance of that "offset."

Jones has been committed to a third season with Phillips as head coach and Jason Garrett as offensive coordinator. Sources say the owner was particularly pleased with Phillips' work with the defense and doesn't want to interrupt that progress. The chance Jones could hire Shanahan and convince Phillips to remain as defensive coordinator is very remote, a source said. Shanahan replaced Phillips as head coach when he was hired in Denver.

If Garrett should land one of the head coaching jobs available now, it could influence Jones to reconsider his plans and approach Shanahan about joining the Cowboys for the 2009 season because of the offensive void left by Garrett's departure, a source said.

The same source added that Jones was growing "angrier by the day" because of the Cowboys' last two defeats -- to Baltimore and Philadelphia -- which left them out of the playoffs.

However, as noted, any proposed union between the Cowboys and Shanahan is more likely for 2010.

Shanahan seemed to confirm the timing of his eventual return, regardless of the destination, when he told Peter King of SI.com and NBC on Saturday: "What I'm going to do is take a couple of weeks to sit back and relax a little, then consider what it is I'm going to do. Unless there's a perfect situation out there, I'd rather sit out the year and return next year."

However, as profootballtalk.com also reported Saturday, most standard NFL head coaching contracts contain a clause that the coach must "use his very best effort to seek other employment." It is unknown if Shanahan has that specific clause and many in the league doubt Bowlen would not honor the contract if the coach sat out.

Chris Mortensen is a senior NFL analyst for ESPN.

[JR2004]

I just don't get the infatuation with Shanahan or how he was able to keep his job for so long. The man built a reputation off of coaching John Elway and Terrell Davis. To borrow from Jerry Jones, there's 500 different coaches who could've led that group of Broncos to those Super Bowl wins.

[Looking4number8]

Originally posted by JR2004
I just don't get the infatuation with Shanahan or how he was able to keep his job for so long. The man built a reputation off of coaching John Elway and Terrell Davis. To borrow from Jerry Jones, there's 500 different coaches who could've led that group of Broncos to those Super Bowl wins.

I have always liked Shanahan but I do agree with you.

[Macarthur]

From everything I have read, it's not Shannahan the coach that was his downfall in Denver. It was Shannahan the personel guy.

I think he's a very good coach, and a definate upgrade over Wade.

The Cowboys personel dept has shown of late that they have a clue so I think this could be a pretty good marriage. All Shannahan would have to do is worry about coaching.

[WylieBulldog92]

Wait Wade Phillips is out?

[JR2004]

Originally posted by WylieBulldog92
Wait Wade Phillips is out?

No it's just speculation on Shanahan coming in as an OC if Garrett leaves or possibly being the head coach in 2010 if Dallas has another disappointing season.

[Phil C]

Philadelphia just beat Minnesota 26 to 14 to advance in the NFL playoffs. The main difference is that the Eagles' David Akers hit four field goals with three of them over 40 yards. The Vikings were in the game until about the final 6 1/2 minutes when the Eagles took control of the game and put it out of reach.
Still a good game and great effort by the Vikings.

(Hint hint Dallas).

[JR2004]

Originally posted by Looking4number8
I have always liked Shanahan but I do agree with you.

He seems like an alright guy to me and I can't argue with the success he's had with different RB's over the years.

Well he's alright until he tries to screw me out of wins in the 3ADL football league like he almost did a couple of months back! :mad: :mad:

[SintonFan_inAustin]

Garrett has interviews with Denver and Detriot, hopefully one of those teams goes for the bait and pick him as a head coach or waterboy whichever just take him!

[piratebg]

Originally posted by SintonFan_inAustin
Garrett has interviews with Denver and Detriot, hopefully one of those teams goes for the bait and pick him as a head coach or waterboy whichever just take him!


I agree. I think Shanahan could be a good fit in Dallas, but I go back and forth. If they do decide to pursue a new HC, I would consider asking Phillips to stay as DC. The defense improved a whole lot once he got more involved.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by piratebg
I agree. I think Shanahan could be a good fit in Dallas, but I go back and forth. If they do decide to pursue a new HC, I would consider asking Phillips to stay as DC. The defense improved a whole lot once he got more involved.

I really really doubt Phillips would stay..especially if it was Shanahan since he was replaced by him once before already


my biggest concern with Shanhan is like of small OL..how will that change in Dallas

[piratebg]

I just read Cowboys WR coach Ray Sherman will be interviewing for the St Louis Job. That's 2 offensive coaches that could be out now.

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by piratebg
I just read Cowboys WR coach Ray Sherman will be interviewing for the St Louis Job. That's 2 offensive coaches that could be out now.

I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that Sherman is being interviewed just because of the color of his skin (Rooney Rule). I haven't heard any teams talk about him as a potential HC before.

[Electus Unus]

Originally posted by piratebg
I just read Cowboys WR coach Ray Sherman will be interviewing for the St Louis Job. That's 2 offensive coaches that could be out now. Is that a bad thing?:thinking:

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that Sherman is being interviewed just because of the color of his skin (Rooney Rule). I haven't heard any teams talk about him as a potential HC before.

Matt Millen got in trouble over that rule a few years ago. When
Steve Mariucci left San Francisco, he fired Marty Morhiweg(sp?)
and brought in Steve. The league fined him and the Lions for
the violation.

I understand the intention of the rule. But, in this case it didn't
make any sense. The only reason the job was open is because
Mariucci became available and that's who Millen wanted. What
would be the point of bringing a minority canidate in? Tou'd
think that would be kinda humiliating, not to mention a waste of
both party's time.:thinking:

[Emerson1]

If I was black I would be insulted if I was brought in just because they had to. Idiotic rule.

[Texasfootball2]

Originally posted by JR2004
I just don't get the infatuation with Shanahan or how he was able to keep his job for so long. The man built a reputation off of coaching John Elway and Terrell Davis. To borrow from Jerry Jones, there's 500 different coaches who could've led that group of Broncos to those Super Bowl wins.

I totally disagree. If what you say is true, then why hasn't Tony Dungee won multiple Super Bowls with Manning and Company (probably a better all around group than the fore mentioned Broncos). Or even this years Cowboys, arguably more talented than either won of the fore mentioned Broncos and Colts. When you coach 15 years and only have two seasons under .500 and have 10 seasons of double digit wins, you can flat out coach in a league where it is very difficult to coach players who make more than you do. This league is all about coaching and not just talent.

I personally think that Shanahan would be the perfect fit for the Cowboys. You put his running game scheme with the present stable full of Running Backs that the Cowboys have and throw in his ability to coach QB's and I think the Cowboys would be consistantly in the playoffs and make deep long playoffs runs and probably even win another Super Bowl. Guys like Mike Shanahan and Jeff Fisher are almost impossible to find these days with there ability to stick around a professional organization for a long period of time. Jerry Jones abd his ego would be the only wild card in the whole cinerio.

[Bullaholic]

We have elected our first Afro-American President---Why in the world is such a silly rule still needed by the NFL? Does anyone suppose that mega-wealthy, savvy NFL owners are going to reject or pass over the best qualified available head coaching candidate because of racial prejudices? It is not a factor in player acquistions, so why artificially make it a problem in the coach selection process?

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Texasfootball2
I totally disagree. If what you say is true, then why hasn't Tony Dungee won multiple Super Bowls with Manning and Company (probably a better all around group than the fore mentioned Broncos). Or even this years Cowboys, arguably more talented than either won of the fore mentioned Broncos and Colts. When you coach 15 years and only have two seasons under .500 and have 10 seasons of double digit wins, you can flat out coach in a league where it is very difficult to coach players who make more than you do. This league is all about coaching and not just talent.

I personally think that Shanahan would be the perfect fit for the Cowboys. You put his running game scheme with the present stable full of Running Backs that the Cowboys have and throw in his ability to coach QB's and I think the Cowboys would be consistantly in the playoffs and make deep long playoffs runs and probably even win another Super Bowl. Guys like Mike Shanahan and Jeff Fisher are almost impossible to find these days with there ability to stick around a professional organization for a long period of time. Jerry Jones abd his ego would be the only wild card in the whole cinerio.



Shanahan wants a much smaller quicker O-line than Dallas has. He teaches the slant blocking scheme that allows quick RB's to cutback. He would not be able to do that in Dallas so would lose half of his effectiveness. But even with that he would be a much better fit than Wade "Stillwell honey" Phililps.............................

[JR2004]

Originally posted by Texasfootball2
I totally disagree. If what you say is true, then why hasn't Tony Dungee won multiple Super Bowls with Manning and Company (probably a better all around group than the fore mentioned Broncos). Or even this years Cowboys, arguably more talented than either won of the fore mentioned Broncos and Colts. When you coach 15 years and only have two seasons under .500 and have 10 seasons of double digit wins, you can flat out coach in a league where it is very difficult to coach players who make more than you do. This league is all about coaching and not just talent.

I personally think that Shanahan would be the perfect fit for the Cowboys. You put his running game scheme with the present stable full of Running Backs that the Cowboys have and throw in his ability to coach QB's and I think the Cowboys would be consistantly in the playoffs and make deep long playoffs runs and probably even win another Super Bowl. Guys like Mike Shanahan and Jeff Fisher are almost impossible to find these days with there ability to stick around a professional organization for a long period of time. Jerry Jones abd his ego would be the only wild card in the whole cinerio.

Regular season wins don't mean a whole heckuva lot when you continually fail in the playoffs. Shanahan has failed badly in the post-season post-Elway. He has led the Broncos to just 5 playoff games since Elway left and has won just one of the five. The other 4 losses have all been by no less than 17 points.

In comparison my completely inept franchise in Washington has found a way to win two playoff games over that same time span.

You know maybe Shanahan would fit right in with the Cowboys!

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
We have elected our first Afro-American President---Why in the world is such a silly rule still needed by the NFL? Does anyone suppose that mega-wealthy, savvy NFL owners are going to reject or pass over the best qualified available head coaching candidate because of racial prejudices? It is not a factor in player acquistions, so why artificially make it a problem in the coach selection process?

Well, in a perfect world, we would like to think it wouldn't matter.

However, the powers that be in Pittsburg have been pretty open about the fact that they did not think Mike Tomlin would blow them away like he did in the interview. He certainly was not thier top candidate going in.

Many folks believe that if that rule had not been in place, Tomlin would not have gotten that job. And many think he could be a top 5 coach in the league right now.

We all are creatures of habit. I have hired many folks and I know first hand how easy it is to fall into the trap of hiring the "types" of folks that you have experience with and feel comfortable with.

Again, I wish we didn't need these types of things, but I think in at least one case, it's proven to work. Also, the owners agreed to this so it's not like the government is forcing them to do something.

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Well, in a perfect world, we would like to think it wouldn't matter.

However, the powers that be in Pittsburg have been pretty open about the fact that they did not think Mike Tomlin would blow them away like he did in the interview. He certainly was not thier top candidate going in.

Many folks believe that if that rule had not been in place, Tomlin would not have gotten that job. And many think he could be a top 5 coach in the league right now.

We all are creatures of habit. I have hired many folks and I know first hand how easy it is to fall into the trap of hiring the "types" of folks that you have experience with and feel comfortable with.

Again, I wish we didn't need these types of things, but I think in at least one case, it's proven to work. Also, the owners agreed to this so it's not like the government is forcing them to do something.

Counterintuitively, though, couldn't the rule work to then hurt Caucasian assistant coaches? I mean, if you're going to interview an assistant coach, and you have to interview at least one minority, then wouldn't you naturally be more inclined to interview a minority assistant than a Caucasian?

Totally just playing devil's advocate here, but I do think the Rooney Rule has some serious flaws.

[Pick6]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
Counterintuitively, though, couldn't the rule work to then hurt Caucasian assistant coaches? I mean, if you're going to interview an assistant coach, and you have to interview at least one minority, then wouldn't you naturally be more inclined to interview a minority assistant than a Caucasian?

Totally just playing devil's advocate here, but I do think the Rooney Rule has some serious flaws.

Not just the Rooney Rule, affirmative action itself has serious flaws in it.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
Counterintuitively, though, couldn't the rule work to then hurt Caucasian assistant coaches? I mean, if you're going to interview an assistant coach, and you have to interview at least one minority, then wouldn't you naturally be more inclined to interview a minority assistant than a Caucasian?

Well, I suspose, but the whole point of the rule is that minority coaches have not gotten a fair shake. There's really no questioning that fact.

If you're implying that caucasian coaches will be negatively impacted, I think that's disingenuous.

Noone is requiring hiring quotas. Just interviews.


Totally just playing devil's advocate here, but I do think the Rooney Rule has some serious flaws.

I don't think anything like this is without some flaws, but I think the rule is a good thing and realistically, no caucasian coach is being unfairly looked over. Especially, when the vast majority of interviews are with caucasian candidates.

[crzyjournalist03]

Why not just do a five-candidate interview minimum or something?

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by Pick6
Not just the Rooney Rule, affirmative action itself has serious flaws in it.

This is two different things.

As I said earlier, the NFL agreed to this Rooney rule. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to do this.

I also think a distinction needs to be made in affirmative action and quotas.

At face value, there's nothing really wrong with affirmative action. I think you should want to have a wide range of applicants from varied backgrounds.

The problem comes in with hiring quotas. Quotas based on race, ethnicity, faith and things of that nature, I believe it crosses over into flawed policy.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
Why not just do a five-candidate interview minimum or something?

History has shown that in the vast majority of cases it will be 5 white coaches.

Look, I'm not completely comfortable being a defender of the policy. Certainly, it's got its warts, but again, the teams AGREED to this as a group. No one forced them to do this. There were some pressures to do this, but I just don't see this as a bad thing. I can understand if a minority candidate would feel "token", but I think in 10 years, it will be a non-issue.