Tired of the Head Coaching Search (MET)

[Om]

I would suggest that there's plenty of evidence out there to back up the concept that Dan Snyder doesn't have a clue. This is simply the most recent example.

You keep repeating what I've said.

There's hope for you yet.

Considering that you KNOW I'm neither a fan of the NFL nor the sport of football in general, but rather the Washington Redskins specifically, I took your challenge a little differently, Om. Let's look at the last three coaching turnovers in DC....

January 7, 2004 Coach Joe Gibbs is hired.... 11 days after the last game of the 03-04 season.

January 14, 2002 Coach Steve Spurrier is hired.... 15 days after the last game of the 01-02 season.

January 4, 2001 Coach Marty Schottenheimer is hired.... 11 days after the last game of the 00-01 season.

Currently we're at day 15 past the end of the 07-08 season and there's no sign in sight that the new coach is about to be named. Now my 7 days, which I'll stand behind as what I think it should take, is shown to be very Conservative, but we've now exceeded the previous high length of time for this administration to put a new head coach in place and there's no end to this search in sight.

You didn't take my challenge at all. You sidestepped it and did something that has no relevance to my point about what is or is not a "normal" length of time for an NFL franchise to hire a new head coach in today's market.

You don't have to be a fan of the rest of the league to do a little legwork and find out if your abitrary "one week tops" timetable for hiring a coach holds up to even cursory scrutiny. All you have to do is step off the soapbox for long enough to look around a little and see if what you're preaching has any basis in objective reality.

[DOOG]

You keep repeating what I've said.

So do you.....:laugh: so nice you said it twice! :logo:

***EDIT***...Om had posted the same response twice..but he has since deleted it..

[Om]

So do you.....:laugh: so nice you said it twice! :logo:

***EDIT***...Om had posted the same response twice..but he has since deleted it..

It never happened.

*

Now off to kick the ass of whoever put the ****ing "edit" button next to the ****ing "quote" button ... :cool:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You keep repeating what I've said.

There's hope for you yet.

Don't count on that, Om. Don't count on that at all.

You didn't take my challenge at all. You sidestepped it and did something that has no relevance to my point about what is or is not a "normal" length of time for an NFL franchise to hire a new head coach in today's market.

You don't have to be a fan of the rest of the league to do a little legwork and find out if your abitrary "one week tops" timetable for hiring a coach holds up to even cursory scrutiny. All you have to do is step off the soapbox for long enough to look around a little and see if what you're preaching has any basis in objective reality.

You missed my point, Om; or rather chose to ignore it more likely. Since I couldn't care any less about any of the other teams in the league, how long it takes for them to hire coaches is totally irrelevant to me. If it takes the Browns or the Eagles a month to hire a new head coach... GOOD FOR THEM. That's not a concern of mine. What IS a concern of mine is what I believe is best for the WASHINGTON REDSKINS, and in this case I believe it is to have had a new head coach in place LAST WEEK, not at some unknown point in the future.

[Om]

Don't count on that, Om. Don't count on that at all.

Don't count on there being hope for you? I don't, MSF, not really. I'm just an eternal optimist I guess.

You missed my point, Om; or rather chose to ignore it more likely. Since I couldn't care any less about any of the other teams in the league, how long it takes for them to hire coaches is totally irrelevant to me. If it takes the Browns or the Eagles a month to hire a new head coach... GOOD FOR THEM. That's not a concern of mine. What IS a concern of mine is what I believe is best for the WASHINGTON REDSKINS, and in this case I believe it is to have had a new head coach in place LAST WEEK, not at some unknown point in the future.

I didn't miss your point at all. Your original "point" is precisely what I challenged you to back up based on anything besides the arbitrary timetable you have in your head. You've now twice opted to ignore that basic challenge and simply restate your opinion. That's fine. If you can't or won't back your opinion up with anything substantive, that deals with the context of the issue at hand, that's your choice.

[Cooley4eva]

I don't know why we are looking anywhere....everyone on the team loves GW and he runs a great defense that played really the second half of the season even with the death of 21. Honestly if we hire fassell who knows who he wiull bring in. Synder needs to pick someone soon so we can get ready for the draft.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Don't count on there being hope for you? I don't, MSF, not really. I'm just an eternal optimist I guess.

This is one case where your optimism is seriously misplaced. There is no "hope" that I'm ever going to join the mainstream opinion on pretty much anything sports related. Though I am glad to see you're not putting too much of a stake in me changing. I'd just hate to disappoint you.

I didn't miss your point at all. Your original "point" is precisely what I challenged you to back up based on anything besides the arbitrary timetable you have in your head. You've now twice opted to ignore that basic challenge and simply restate your opinion. That's fine. If you can't or won't back your opinion up with anything substantive, that deals with the context of the issue at hand, that's your choice.

Om, I took what I consider to be the relevant numbers related to your challenge (length of time for THIS TEAM to replace Head Coaches under this Ownership group) and admitted that they're actually longer (12-13 days on average) than what I would prefer the timetable to be (7 days). That doesn't change my belief in a week being the appropriate timetable to get it done.

Now obviously that doesn't meet the requirements of your challenge, which appear to be comparing apples (the Redskins) to oranges (the rest of the league) in my mind. Apparently we have different opinions on what the context of the issue at hand is. That's fine. We rarely agree on anything and this will simply be another thing we disagree on.

[voicekiller]

I just wish this was over

[elkabong82]

This is one case where your optimism is seriously misplaced. There is no "hope" that I'm ever going to join the mainstream opinion on pretty much anything sports related. Though I am glad to see you're not putting too much of a stake in me changing. I'd just hate to disappoint you.

Om, I took what I consider to be the relevant numbers related to your challenge (length of time for THIS TEAM to replace Head Coaches under this Ownership group) and admitted that they're actually longer (12-13 days on average) than what I would prefer the timetable to be (7 days). That doesn't change my belief in a week being the appropriate timetable to get it done.

Now obviously that doesn't meet the requirements of your challenge, which appear to be comparing apples (the Redskins) to oranges (the rest of the league) in my mind. Apparently we have different opinions on what the context of the issue at hand is. That's fine. We rarely agree on anything and this will simply be another thing we disagree on.

Of course you won't join the mainstream cuz you get off by posting the most negative crap simply to garner a reaction. It fits your self-involved, narcissistic MO. You even said earlier you don't care about any other teams at all, and therefore don't care about their coach process because it doesn't matter. Obviously other teams coach interview process gives us an idea of our process, so it is important. It's called compare and contrast. But that, and a myriad of other things brought up in other arguments which you immediately dismiss (or so proudly put any dissenters or your ignore list because you are so self-involved you'd rather shove your head in the sand like an ostrich), just shows you care more about you than anything else.

And I know unless this gets quoted you won't read it cuz I'm on your ignore list as well. I'm simply putting this up so everyone else who doesn't already know what you are really about will, so they can avoid this stupid, childish game you always play. They need to know why the M in your name is silent.

[Om]

Om, I took what I consider to be the relevant numbers related to your challenge (length of time for THIS TEAM to replace Head Coaches under this Ownership group) and admitted that they're actually longer (12-13 days on average) than what I would prefer the timetable to be (7 days). That doesn't change my belief in a week being the appropriate timetable to get it done.

Now obviously that doesn't meet the requirements of your challenge, which appear to be comparing apples (the Redskins) to oranges (the rest of the league) in my mind. Apparently we have different opinions on what the context of the issue at hand is. That's fine. We rarely agree on anything and this will simply be another thing we disagree on.

I just want it clear what happened before dismissing this as something we simply fail to agree on.

You made it clear you thought that the hiring process taking longer than one week was an indicator that Snyder was incompetent. I asked if you could provide any context for that statement, any kind of objective measuring stick against which your claim could be measured. You refused twice and chose instead to compare the Redskins to the Redskins. Or, in terms of your own analogy, to inspect one apple and conclude from that examination that it represents all apples.

Here's why I chimed in. Knowing your penchant to pose extreme thoughts simply for their effect, I was actually interested in that one aspect of your claim. I've not seen the notion of a one-week (or any limit, for that matter) limit before it becomes a sign of institutional incompetence discussed elsewhere. So I thought I'd see what your line of thinking was in reaching that conclusion.

Maybe you're right, maybe it should never take more than one week. But even casual observation of the context in which that measure is being taken, the NFL, indicates that it very rarely if ever takes that little amount of time. All of which leaves you essentially saying "I don't care how long it takes NFL teams to go through the process, I'm saying anything more than a week is a sign of institutional incompetence. And that's that."

If that's a position you're prepared to stand by, I have nothing else to question here.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You made it clear you thought that the hiring process taking longer than one week was an indicator that Snyder was incompetent. I asked if you could provide any context for that statement, any kind of objective measuring stick against which your claim could be measured. You refused twice and chose instead to compare the Redskins to the Redskins. Or, in terms of your own analogy, to inspect one apple and conclude from that examination that it represents all apples.

The thing is, Om, when all you're interested in is apples, why the heck would you look at the orange or pear framers to determine how you should do something. I understand that you disagree, but I see the comparison to the previous coaching changes here in DC to be the appropriate context for the statement. Hell, I even admitted that my seven day claim was probably not something that would ever happen when I noted the lengths of time it has taken in the past for coaches to be selected by the Redskins.

Here's why I chimed in. Knowing your penchant to pose extreme thoughts simply for their effect, I was actually interested in that one aspect of your claim. I've not seen the notion of a one-week (or any limit, for that matter) limit before it becomes a sign of institutional incompetence discussed elsewhere. So I thought I'd see what your line of thinking was in reaching that conclusion.

I take a small amount of umbridge with the statement that I pose extreme thoughts solely for their effect. Not only is that not my way of doing things, but I believe it's in direct violation of the rules here at ES. Though I can see how some might hold that belief, because my views on things are often quite a ways away from the baseline of accepted opinion and view.

As for my line of thinking in regards to the one week time limit, let's see if I can explain it a little more clearly for you and others. I'm of the opinion that every General Manager and Owner in the NFL should have a "Doomsday List" for coaches. That is, a list of the three to five CURRENTLY AVAILABLE individuals that they would most want to hire to replace the current coach if he got hit by a bus that afternoon, quit at the end of the season, or had to be fired for one reason or another. We're talking current Assistants, out of work former Head Coaches, college head coaches or assistants with previous NFL experience, etc... Ten minutes after the current head coach leaves the position (however it occurs) the GM and/or Owner should be on the phone to these people setting up interviews. If one or more are not available because of playoffs or whatever, too bad, they lose their shot at the position. After interviews, you pick the one they feel best suited to the position and go with him. That process shouldn't take more than a week in my mind.

Maybe you're right, maybe it should never take more than one week. But even casual observation of the context in which that measure is being taken, the NFL, indicates that it very rarely if ever takes that little amount of time. All of which leaves you essentially saying "I don't care how long it takes NFL teams to go through the process, I'm saying anything more than a week is a sign of institutional incompetence. And that's that."

If that's a position you're prepared to stand by, I have nothing else to question here.

Yes, that is a position I am willing to stand by. I understand it's an unusual position and one that flies in the face of the majority opinion on the topic, but it is what I believe.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

You keep repeating what I've said.

There's hope for you yet.

You didn't take my challenge at all. You sidestepped it and did something that has no relevance to my point about what is or is not a "normal" length of time for an NFL franchise to hire a new head coach in today's market.

You don't have to be a fan of the rest of the league to do a little legwork and find out if your abitrary "one week tops" timetable for hiring a coach holds up to even cursory scrutiny. All you have to do is step off the soapbox for long enough to look around a little and see if what you're preaching has any basis in objective reality.

Ouch. :hammer: Om, you certainly can bring the lumber when necessary. The tenor of this thread, in particular the more recent posts, is IMO evidence not so much of fans' frustration but of a growing, fatalistic "we're gonna shoot ourselves in the foot again" attitude that seems to be creeping into our collective mindsets. I know how I felt back in the heyday, that nothing (more specifically, no game situation) was too much to overcome -- somehow the 'Skins would win out. On the very few occasions that didn't happen I was genuinely shocked.

Nowadays, alas, the reverse is true. Even in JG II I feared the worst, and it happened more times than I care to remember. Reading this thread and others has convinced me that I'm far from alone in this. Let's all hope we're soon to be proved wrong.

HTTR

[Om]

I'm of the opinion that every General Manager and Owner in the NFL should have a "Doomsday List" for coaches. That is, a list of the three to five CURRENTLY AVAILABLE individuals that they would most want to hire to replace the current coach if he got hit by a bus that afternoon, quit at the end of the season, or had to be fired for one reason or another. We're talking current Assistants, out of work former Head Coaches, college head coaches or assistants with previous NFL experience, etc... Ten minutes after the current head coach leaves the position (however it occurs) the GM and/or Owner should be on the phone to these people setting up interviews. If one or more are not available because of playoffs or whatever, too bad, they lose their shot at the position. After interviews, you pick the one they feel best suited to the position and go with him. That process shouldn't take more than a week in my mind.

Yes, that is a position I am willing to stand by. I understand it's an unusual position and one that flies in the face of the majority opinion on the topic, but it is what I believe.

What it boils down to is that you assume Snyder, Gibbs and Cerrato did NOT do those things. They just didn't do them fast enough to suit you.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

What it boils down to is that you assume Snyder, Gibbs and Cerrato did NOT do those things. They just didn't do them fast enough to suit you.

I'm sorry but if they DID those things and THIS is what we still get out of it, that's only further proof of even GREATER incompetence in my mind.

Let's look at what that "Doomsday List" had to include for your supposition to be true....

Bill Cowher (doesn't want to coach this year)

Jim Schwartz (interviewed but didn't hire him)

Jim Mora, Jr (doesn't want the job)

Gregg Williams (interviewed 4 times but not offered the job)

Jim Fassel (obviously a very low choice)

---I'm sure that I'm missing a couple---

That list doesn't exactly impress me very much. It definitely doesn't seem like they did a whole lot of homework ahead of time if that's the best they could come up with... 1 guy who doesn't want any job, 1 guy who doesn't want THIS job, 2 guys they don't want after interviewing them, and 1 guy who's obviously an also-ran but currently the most likely prospect on the list. That's scary to me.

[Om]

MSF,

All of which is straight opinion, based on what has been reported in a media that knows no more about what's going on behind closed doors than we do.

Again though, I'm not challenging your right to have that opinion. And that's not what I was interested in when I replied to you. What I wanted was to understand how you came to formulate your one-week timetable for completing the hiring process before deciding those doing the hiring were incompetent. It was outside the box enough that I wanted to know if it was based on anything more than just your gut.

I understand given your responses that you really have no objective criteria, nor think any are needed. You're just going with your own gut sense. That's fine. And it's really all I wanted to know.

Thanks.

[TheLongshot]

That list doesn't exactly impress me very much. It definitely doesn't seem like they did a whole lot of homework ahead of time if that's the best they could come up with... 1 guy who doesn't want any job, 1 guy who doesn't want THIS job, 2 guys they don't want after interviewing them, and 1 guy who's obviously an also-ran but currently the most likely prospect on the list. That's scary to me.

Some corrections to your list. Mora didn't want to leave where he was. That's different than "didn't want the job". Had his situation been different, he might as well wanted the job. Considering that he was probably the second candidate interviewed, I'd hardly call Fassel an "also-ran". That leaves three other candidates (you forgot Meeks) that they are still considering as well as Fassel.

I guess in your world people always get hired immediately, but in the real world, these things can take time. Sometimes it takes more than one interview. Sometimes, those doing the hiring are taking care of other things. Sometimes there are details that need to be worked out.

Jason

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Some corrections to your list. Mora didn't want to leave where he was. That's different than "didn't want the job". Had his situation been different, he might as well wanted the job. Considering that he was probably the second candidate interviewed, I'd hardly call Fassel an "also-ran". That leaves three other candidates (you forgot Meeks) that they are still considering as well as Fassel.

Mora chose to remove his name from consideration. To me that means he didn't want the job. Whether it's because he liked the job he currently had or whatever other reason is immaterial... He doesn't want the job as Head Coach of the Washington Redskins.

Until we have some actual confirmation that Fassel was the "mystery guest" I'll remain somewhat questioning of the idea that he's anything other than an also-ran.

My apologies to Meeks and whatever others I missed on the list, but I've lost track of all the "candidates" we've interviewed for the job and not given it to at this point.

I guess in your world people always get hired immediately, but in the real world, these things can take time. Sometimes it takes more than one interview. Sometimes, those doing the hiring are taking care of other things. Sometimes there are details that need to be worked out.

In my world employers don't dick around with important positions that need to be filled. They have plans in place to deal with the eventuality that high-profile positions need to be filled quickly and smoothly to keep the company moving along.

In my mind if it takes more than one interview someone didn't do their homework or the wrong questions were asked at the first interview. So far as I'm concerned until there's a new coach there's really very little for this franchise to do, so I have a hard time buying the "other things to do" arguement.

[Piledriven]

Wow so the falcons and ravens have taken longer to pick a coach then the Redskins currently have and yet you bash snyder.

WOW.

Last I checked the Ravens already HAVE hired a new coach....OLD NEWS!

[Piledriven]

No disrespect intended, but seems to me what you're really pissed about is encapsulated in your last sentence. Not sure it's the timing of the new HC hire so much as your underlying feelings about the owner.

Let me ask you this ... would you have been just as pissed if he'd "rushed into it" in a matter of a couple days and hired GW "without due diligence?"

What difference does that make? Doesn't a fan have the right to express his own opinion about the owner?? If so, a message board is the place to do so... I do not see any problem with what he said. He had his opinion, and said it in an open forum. Fair enough. And I believe that a lot of fans would agree with his feelings...

GO SKINS

[Om]

What difference does that make? Doesn't a fan have the right to express his own opinion about the owner?? If so, a message board is the place to do so... I do not see any problem with what he said. He had his opinion, and said it in an open forum. Fair enough. And I believe that a lot of fans would agree with his feelings...

GO SKINS

Perhaps you simply missed the places where I directly said he's entitled to his opinion. Just as you are to yours, and I am to mine.

You might also consider that, this being a message board, people routinely question the basis for other's opinions. It's kind of what drives the thing.

And just for the record ... I believe a lot of fans would agree with my feelings about the basis for his particular feelings in this instance as well.

[Piledriven]

Perhaps you simply missed the places where I directly said he's entitled to his opinion. Just as you are to yours, and I am to mine.

You might also consider that, this being a message board, people routinely question the basis for other's opinions. It's kind of what drives the thing.

And just for the record ... I believe a lot of fans would agree with my feelings about the basis for his particular feelings in this instance as well.

:jerk:

[Om]

:jerk:

So ... you ask me a direct question, I give you a direct answer, and you respond by jerking off. Glad I could provide you some relief.

That'll be $50.