Fox, Hurney and entire staff get to stay?

Point being if a coach doesn't want to be somewhere then its idiotic to pay him to run your team. He would be let go for nothing before they would continue with a disgruntled coach.

I'm not remotely suggesting that this is the situation,

 

There is some logic to your argument but you can not deny that teams have traded for coaches in the recent past. I do not want to lose Fox but if he wants out I would love to get a high draft pick in return for him. I can't see a team giving up a draft pick and then giving Fox a big multi year contract when there is a potential lockout looming in 2011. That is what it would take to hire him away from us.

I suppose the scenerio you describe is more like Fox steps down and does not coach anywhere in 2010. I am not sure he would do that with the possible lock out in 2011 either though cause that puts him on the shelf for two years.

 

I don't think Fox is seen as the class of coach to warrant to a high draft pick.

 

I'd put the chances of a lockout pretty low. Theres entirely too much money to be lost but I see how it could affect thinking. We'll see how much the teams are thinking about that early next week.

 

He has had more success than Gruden or Bellicheck had when they were acquired.

 

Gruden had a 13 point higher win% than Fox when he left the Raiders and had two division titles in a row while leaving behind a team that would win the division and reach the super bowl the next year. And my post was based on perception, I don't think teams would give up a wealth of draft picks for him because I don't think he is seen as an elite coach around the league.

 

Fox has already been to a superbowl. You can not give Gruden credit for what his team did the year after the Bucs acquired him when you are talking about what he did to entice the Bucs to get him.

Most owners want a team that consistently is competitive. That way they keep the fans on board. Years where you go 3-13 are a killer. Fox is very solid in that area. He never has awful years. He sometimes has very good years.

 

and yet so many call that mediocre. I don't know - seems like leading the conference in wins over your span, making it deep into the playoffs more times than most in your conference, those things aren't mediocre. At worst they're above average, since I can't think of more than half of the coaches in the fucking league doing that.

 

I think it's the streakyness that accentuates the bad. Along with the Delhomme. If he could put together winning seasons he'd be here until he retired

 

sure. But the "bad" is not catastrophic, and people swing the word mediocre around and it doesn't fit.