Coach Tuesday

I mean - guess who we’re playing this weekend…

Again: this would primarily be about goal line offense in light of Josh’s injury/health.

I am starting to worry a bit that Allen’s admitted lack of interest in film study is causing some of the presnap identification and protection issues we’re seeing. Allen seems to be too often looking for answers after the ball is snapped, as opposed to beforehand. That puts a ton of added pressure on the playcaller and the offense as a whole. Sorry to be sacrilegious. I’m not sure Dorsey bears all of the blame here.

McD clearly wants to set a more physical tone on offense, earlier in the game. He has wanted that his entire tenure but has never gotten it. He signed and captained Frank Gore, he drafted Zach Moss. His OCs have always been Madden playcallers who ignore his strategic directives. Now he’s loading up with bettering rams (Murray, Harris and Fournette) to force Dorsey’s hand. Let’s see if Dorsey actually uses him - I bet he doesn’t. It’s an amazing cycle if you step back and think about it. But also, with Allen’s shoulder injury making goal line carries a bigger risk, this signing makes sense.

The EQ should nearly match the IQ. Unless you’re Bill Belicheck I guess.

Threads like these = why I come here.

an

I am pretty sure the coaches have been preaching YAC and Davis, who is terrible at YAC, was trying to accommodate. He failed.

They need to find a YAC specialist at the very least. Davis trying to score some YAC resulted in a hilariously sad, critical fumble - he just can't do it. McD knows this is a huge problem.

In a real business with accountability and professional standards there would be consequences for some of this stuff but I don’t see that happening here.

It’s time for some accountability at OBD.

Never forget he smashed a teammate over the head with a chair - during film study.

Apparently Dane Jackson has a foot injury so....

You are missing the fact that most fans don't watch other teams/players during the season unless they're that week's opponent - that, and the fact that social media/the internet is a megaphone for the uninformed.

Yes - along with the openness of it, if it wasn't disclosed properly, and/or is in violation of company policy. Stop it.

Nobody claimed that the relationship itself is grounds for a harassment claim. Never change, @Mr. WEO

Promptly disclose it to Terry and ask for her reporting line to be moved to him (if possible).

No, that's just not how it works and even if a jury wouldn't be swayed by that evidence (which you're just wrong about), any professional organization wouldn't want the added risk. Want another hypothetical? A mid-level female employee is fired for not disclosing a relationship with a male colleague; she claims selective enforcement / gender discrimination and points to the open affair going on between the COO and GC. There are tons of other hypothetical scenarios where this sort of thing presents serious and unacceptable risk to the company. I've been on this board a long time, as you know - I don't ever claim to have any special football expertise (quite the opposite). This is an instance where I do happen to have real-world expertise and I'm telling you, this is just SOP in 2023.

Most of what you’ve written here is just wrong, I don’t have the time or the will to debate it all, but I’m telling you as someone with decades of experience with this stuff that you’ve got it wrong.

You're missing it. Let's say a female executive assistant gets let go. She believes she should not have been let go. She also believes she was treated poorly relative to male peers, or by her male superior. She brings an unlawful termination claim and a sexual harassment claim. She includes allegations in her lawsuit about the "toxic culture" at the company, citing as evidence the fact that the chief risk officers at the company - the two people with the most responsibility for ensuring that the workplace is fair and harassment-free - are openly having an affair, in violation of company policy. "If those two people don't have to comply, who does?" Is the message that permeates the organization. This is the type of risk that every professional organization today tries to avoid. I don't really need to debate this with you, it's SOP in 2023. It is what it is, as Aristotle said.

Have you ever worked for a professional company? You're outing yourself as someone who has never had to sit through a manager-level HR training program (good for you, they suck). The risk that other employees would bring harassment claims and point to that relationship as evidence of a lackadaisical workplace culture (or worse). The risk that she would sue for retaliation if fired. Many others. This is standard practice. Want more risk? The risk that Terry ends up being the subject of an article like this one. You just can't have this stuff going on between your chief risk officers, especially if it wasn't disclosed per company policy, violates company policy, and/or was so out in the open and reckless that it makes everyone uncomfortable.

I’m not saying that - I’m saying it opens up the organization to unnecessary risk, for a slew of reasons. Agree with you about the optics.

I explained it above - their particular roles (GC and COO) makes it highly problematic, especially if it violates a written policy. That said, even though she reported to him, I wouldn’t be casually referring to the General Counsel as an “underling.” They’re both usually c-suite titles. This probably could’ve been handled differently by everyone - they should’ve promptly disclosed the relationship (they may not have wanted to because one or both of them may be married), and then her reporting line should’ve been moved over to Terry directly.

Life ain’t that simple my friend. This. You can’t have your GC - who is your chief risk manager for the entire organization - engage in such risky behavior. Your COO is a close second there in terms of who you’d need to be risk-appropriate. And perhaps if they had disclosed it promptly and properly it would’ve been dealt with differently (though one of them surely would’ve had to leave).

Sutton cannot separate.