Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by SuperCharger92, Nov 8, 2012.
Gaither is malingering again, I see.
Damn, its unlikely we win anyway, and its stuff like this that gives Norv more excuses for being a failure.
I don't think there'd be any excuse for dropping 5 games in a row.
They should just put the whole charger organization on IR for the rest of this season. At least I wouldn't have to read all the loser post's.
They had an excuse dropping 6 in a row last year
They did... awful coach and a terrible QB
Edit: I'm just going to edit this for the people going to jump on me for saying Rivers played terrible. He isn't a terrible QB, but he did play terrible last year.
and not doing a lot better this year either...
They won't need excuses now that he's in the last year of his contract.
We all know the real rea$on Norv wa$n't fired by $pano$ la$t year.
The only way I foresee Norval still hear next year is if it's for good results.
Not that I can't fathom a scenario that would involve fans still complaining that he's brought back, but IMO it'd at least involve making the playoffs....not that I'm suggesting that should be good enough, but it would still mean some amount of late-season success.
Yeah, but at the end of the day it was still an excuse.
The actual rea$on doe$n't exi$t thi$ year.
Actually, he isn't in the last year of his contract. He is in the 2nd to last year. He is signed through the 2013 season- http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815d2c9e&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
And AJ is signed through 2014: http://www.chargers.com/team/staff/a-j-smith/6c7c44d5-f76e-471a-85c8-439dfee97abb
Well, I stand corrected.
I thought 2009 was the last year of his contract when he signed the 3 year extension for some reason.
All well, either way, here's hoping that Spanos doesn't mind sucking up one year and just had a problem with two years (if necessary. I'm not writing the season off just yet)
I was wondering where all the "lame duck" articles were, though. The sports media loves to make a big to do about that.
I agree (hence the little green checkmark)
While I agree, I'm not sure I do in the sense that some may take from this.
I don't think the money-based reason had much to do with Spanos pulling a Mike Brown and not wanting to pay a guy to no longer work for him. Instead, I think it's way more a case of Spanos being a very conservative businessman - that is, much as we may not like it, his prerogative if he wants to make it his number 1 priority in running this team - who didn't see the potential financial gain (that's not just earning potential but how likely that potential was to be realized) outweighing the cost (i.e under Norv while this team wasn't likely to achieve massive success it also, or so the numbers/statistics supported, wasn't likely to massively tank to the point that future earning potential like prime time games, advertising, endorsements, etc. would take a massive hit).
Norv, while he is a fan's nightmare of a coach, is - you have to give him credit - only short of being a businessman's dream of a coach because he consistently doesn't produce results below the average; at the average plenty and rarely well above the average certainly, but rarely-if-ever below the average. That's the kind of consistency a business can bank on and covets... especially during recessionary times.
I think we need to get away from labeling the Spanos family as "cheap" and more appropriately identify them as "overly-conservative" (with regards to their money and their business practices). A "cheap" organization would do Tampa Bay did for a number of years (when the Glazers were effectively using the Bucs to finance the much more earnings-lucrative Manchester United FC and you could count on nearly every Bucs player whose contract expired to hit the market). Heck, if what Spanos has done can be considered "cheap" then you've got to lump the Rooney's in Pittsburgh in that same boat as well, since they follow almost an identical model (they've just happened to hit more often than we have on their decisions - though on close inspection the margin isn't as disparate as some will want to jump to assume it is).
Separate names with a comma.