A Mark Whipple Sighting

Kudos to the increasingly indispensable Eagletarian blog for spotting this Boston.com story on new Eagles' offensive coach Mark Whipple:

Former University of Massachusetts coach Mark Whipple, who as Steelers quarterback coach was instrumental in the development of Ben Roethlisberger, is back in the NFL after a one-year hiatus.

He's working as an offensive assistant for the Eagles in a "walk-around" role that focuses on the entire offense. His responsibilities could change day to day, from assessing specific players, to the opponent's personnel, to X's and O's such as studying blitz packages.

Whipple, who will work under offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg, is glad to be back in the NFL.

"It's even better than I thought, just great to get back to coaching," he said. "To step back, it was nice for me, but I think it also helped me realize how important coaching is to me, and how fortunate I am to be in this position in this chosen field."

The story doesn't cover much new ground, but at least someone is recognizing the guy's existence.  It's a start. 

(For newer readers, here's the background on why I'm so interested in the guy.)

- - - - - -

With that said, I've got one bone to pick with that same Eagletarian post.  Josh Barnett writes about the Jeff Garcia situation:

Garcia is seeking an extension of the 2-year contract he signed with the Bucs after the 2006 season, when he helped the Eagles reach the postseason following Donovan McNabb's knee injury. Garcia is scheduled to make $2 million this season, plus a $750,000 roster bonus that already has been paid...

While money and playing time were certainly factors in why Garcia was not back with the Eagles, it seems the only appreciation he wants now comes in the paycheck.

It's certainly valid to feel like Garcia should play out his contract.  But you have to at least mention that Garcia mostly seems pissed because he got screwed out of a $1 million performance bonus last season that he clearly earned:

Because of the Bucs' decision to rest him for the final two weeks of the regular season, [Garcia] fell just short of participating in 70 percent of their offensive snaps, preventing him from earning a seven-figure bonus.

Coach Jon Gruden did not allow Garcia to play the second half of the Bucs' 21-19 loss at San Francisco on Dec. 23. Garcia also was benched for the regular-season finale at home against the Panthers on Dec. 30. As a result, Garcia did not get at least $1-million in bonus money.

That's a totally Banner move right there.  When a guy plays so well that you can afford to rest him for your playoff run, you should take care of him by adjusting the contract so that he gets that money.  I'd be annoyed at the organization right now, too.

- - - - - -

I'd suggest taking a look at this New York Times story that ran Sunday about the man who can no longer walk because of that Vegas incident involving Pacman Jones.  Something to keep in mind every time we hear Jones or the other Cowboys talk about "mistakes in the past" or "youthful immaturity." 

- - - - - -

Finally, Jason catches an interesting Delco Times story on the current cornerback muddle.

Comments

[Gabe from BountyBowl]

In re: Whipple...does this just mean that there's another guy on the staff who wants to throw on 3rd and 1?

Uh oh.

[Bears Fan From Austin]

One thought and one thought/question regarding Garcia's contract:

(1) I don't generally get upset when NFL players hold out, since their contracts are not guaranteed. If Garcia had stunk it up last year, the Bucs would have cut him, or brought him back at a discount under the threat of cutting him. That's why I view NFL contract holdouts much differently than MLB or NBA holdouts, where the player has a guaranteed contract. In the NFL, all's fair, the contracts are made to be torn up.

(2) I do not understand why teams and players agree to contracts like Garcia's that create such a misalignment of incentives. As I understand Garcia's contract, there's a point in the year (70% of the Bucs total offensive snaps) when one snap means that Garica earns $1 million. If he is going to be close to that total, there's a complete misalignment of incentives, because clearly 1 snap (or 1 half, or 1 game) of Jeff Garcia is not worth $1 million more than the Bucs' 2nd best QB option. He happened to end up close to that total, so that's the choice the Bucs had.

A more logical structure would be to have Garcia start earning the bonus at some threshold - let's say 50% of total snaps as an example - and then graduall accrue up to his full $1 million bonus at 70% of the snaps. He'd be earning $50k for each additional 1% of snaps that he takes ($1 million divided by (70% - 50%)). Each game of a 16-game season should average out to 6.25% of offensive snaps, so at that point the implicit notion is that the QB you are playing is worth just over $300k per game - or $5 million per season - more than your 2nd best option. That differential doesn't seem crazy. For what it's worth, it's also been my experience that a well-designed company bonus plan, if it's based on a quantifiable goal such as earnings, often follows a structure exactly like this one. In other words, at least some agents and GM's should be aware of these types of bonus structures. Is there some salary cap downside that I'm missing? Perhaps it's related to the rules on likely to be earned incentives versus not likely to be earned incentives?