On the HC Search

[janos_51]

Saying I can't ask for names just because he doesn't want a valid counterpoint to his thread is pretty dumb and I replied my thoughts on the matter. Sorry if it was too "internet tough guy" for you all. I'll bring the maxi pads to the next thread I post in...

[LakeAussie]

I'll bring the maxi pads to the next thread I post in...

You should only have to do that about one week a month. If you're lucky, it won't be at the same time as someone having a bad week.

[PC Load Letter]

agreed. I just expected the push back to come in a form other than exactly what he predicted people would say.

I'm not sure what other way someone could argue it...of course he predicted it.

When someone says we should've included other people in our HC search the next logical response will be "ok, who?". Him saying "don't even give me the 'who' response" doesn't make a difference.

[DaSuperfan]

My interpretation of Mori's post was that he was criticizing the Bears organization as a whole for how they conduct their HC search. He was fine with the fact that we ended up with Trestman but ultimately says that the approach is flawed because we didn't interview any ex-NFL coaches with HC experience or didn't look into the college ranks and look at college coaches. So I just asked which candidates that the Bears did not interview did he want the Bears to check out? We don't know exactly how many coaches Emery chose to interview privately either (he mentioned one ST's coach that kept anonymous throughout the process). I don't think the rebuttals have been over the top, "internet tough guy" responses, but rather legitimate questions raised to the OP who started this discussion. That's all.

[chewtoy]

I'm not sure what other way someone could argue it...of course he predicted it.

When someone says we should've included other people in our HC search the next logical response will be "ok, who?". Him saying "don't even give me the 'who' response" doesn't make a difference.

The other way someone could argue the point, of course, is to address the point of the argument and not derail it into a side discussion he wished to avoid.

Question at hand: Should a good coaching search by definition include former college and pro head coaches

Question NOT at hand: Who was the best coaching candidates for the Bears to interview in 2012.

It isn't rocket science. Seriously. Its not. The question isn't about who was hired or who was interviewed, or even if there were great candidates that we omitted. The question was "we claimed to be thorough and we barely touched the surface of what should be one of the biggest candidate pools. Is that a flawed process? Can we claim we got the best guys if we didn't interview the best candidates from one of the most qualified pool of potential candidates?"

So, forget the bears are involved, forget we hired a coach this year, forget about Marc Trestman and Nick Saban, and lets maybe follow the lead of the OP (or start a different thread about a different topic if you desperately feel the need to defend Chicago's decision not to interview Gruden). But for the love of everything holy, don't derail a high concept thread about a process into a pissing contest over details of our most recent hire. That isn't really the point. He said it, I said it, I don't know how else to say it.

Lets phrase the question in a non-football context to see if it can go anywhere near where it is supposed to go. Lets hypothesize a fortune 500 company who just fired their CEO. They hold an "exhaustive" search where they interview engineers, accountants, lawyers, and mail room clerks from other fortune 500 companies before settling on the "CEO" of a very successful local hardware store. During this process, though, they never really interviewed any former CEO's from international or international companies, just subordinates. Is that a good hiring process? Even if the local hardware store owner turns out to be Bill Gates, does that mean that they followed the right process to find him or just that they got lucky? What is the justification that makes excluding former CEO's the most logical thing to do.

(hint: The right answer is NOT "who are the former CEO's they SHOULD have interviewed?" ;) )

(disclaimer - the arians/singletary comments are still valid, which means that Mori's original point isn't entirely valid. That said, Arians and Singletary still don't represent the cream of the former HC crop, which means that the general point (why didn't we explore this deep pool of candidates thoroughly) still has SOME weight.)

[PC Load Letter]

Question at hand: Should a good coaching search by definition include former college and pro head coaches

Question NOT at hand: Who was the best coaching candidates for the Bears to interview in 2012.

It isn't rocket science. Seriously. Its not. The question isn't about who was hired or who was interviewed, or even if there were great candidates that we omitted. The question was "we claimed to be thorough and we barely touched the surface of what should be one of the biggest candidate pools.

Arians and Singletary still don't represent the cream of the former HC crop, which means that the general point (why didn't we explore this deep pool of candidates thoroughly) still has SOME weight.)

The question at hand also has to factor in WHO IS AVAILABLE and WHO IS WILLING to interview at the time? Does it not? It isn't rocket science. Seriously. It's not.

You continue to contradict yourself. You say it's not about who was/was not interviewed BUT the question is why we barely touched the surface of the candidate pool??

So if Arians and Singletary aren't the cream of the crop (even though naming names isn't what this is all about...) and Chicago ignored all of these awesome candidates in this very deep pool, then WHO ARE THEY?

What is this, an Abbott and Costello routine??

[chewtoy]

This is the most inane conversation I've been a part of in months.

Q: Was the process good?
A: The Bears didn't screw up? They did everything they could! There was nobody better

Q: Yes, but was the process good?
A: But the Bears didn't screw up!

Q: Ok, but was the process good?
A: Why can't you see the Bears didn't screw up?!?!

Look, I've stated about 10 times in this thread that two things are undeniable:
1.) Good candidates existed who were former HC's and who were not interviewed (Gruden, Dungy, Cowher, Kelly, Davies, Shaw, Saban, etc)
2.) Even if you don't like those names there are HUNDREDS of former HC's, so SOMEONE must fit your bill of a viable candidate.

That said, GIVEN THE FACT (UNDENIABLE FACT) that there were candidates who fit Mori's criteria available, and given the fact that they should constitute the deepest and safest pool of talent available, is it ok that we didn't really interview them?

(Hint: The right answer isn't "Well, Gruden this and Saban that". You can't nitpick EVERY former HC alive to the point that they are all worse than the 6th best ST coach in the league. you just can't.)

The comedy gold part of this whole conversation is that THE NAMES DON'T MATTER. Its a talent pool. We didn't explore it. Is that ok? If your answer is "YES" that is a valid answer, just give a reason beyond "Well, the Bears never screw up and they would have done everything they could, so if they didn't it must be because no good candidates exist." That is backwards logic - you don't draw conclusions about the process based on the fact that the process is assumed to be good.

So, to answer your question finally and explicitly, no it doesn't have to factor in WHO IS AVAILABLE and WHO IS WILLING to interview. It is about the process, and whether it is ok to avoid an entire talent pool. Is it ok to compare apples to oranges and choose an apple without ever trying an orange?

Look, it doesn't matter at this point. You've already won. By dragging a good thread back into the same bastardized minutia 1 million times you've already guaranteed that no good or interesting conversation will come around this point. Nobody else is reading, and if they are they sure as heck aren't going to step in front of the "The Bears are good - so the process is good - which means the bears are good" circular logic bullet the way I tend to. Even Mori had enough sense to abandon ship when he saw this thread go off the rails. So, you win. score another one for the old "pretend nothing is ever wrong, and if anyone thinks there is something worth discussing suck the fun out of it by forcing the conversation into irrelevant discussions that branch off into 1million rabbit holes" tactic. Never fails.

[Wounded Bear]

Saying I can't ask for names just because he doesn't want a valid counterpoint to his thread is pretty dumb and I replied my thoughts on the matter. Sorry if it was too "internet tough guy" for you all. I'll bring the maxi pads to the next thread I post in...

Why not, you always seem to bring the douche.

[PC Load Letter]

This is the most inane conversation I've been a part of in months.

Q: Was the process good?
A: The Bears didn't screw up? They did everything they could! There was nobody better

Q: Yes, but was the process good?
A: But the Bears didn't screw up!

Q: Ok, but was the process good?
A: Why can't you see the Bears didn't screw up?!?!

Look, I've stated about 10 times in this thread that two things are undeniable:
1.) Good candidates existed who were former HC's and who were not interviewed (Gruden, Dungy, Cowher, Kelly, Davies, Shaw, Saban, etc)
2.) Even if you don't like those names there are HUNDREDS of former HC's, so SOMEONE must fit your bill of a viable candidate.

That said, GIVEN THE FACT (UNDENIABLE FACT) that there were candidates who fit Mori's criteria available, and given the fact that they should constitute the deepest and safest pool of talent available, is it ok that we didn't really interview them?

(Hint: The right answer isn't "Well, Gruden this and Saban that". You can't nitpick EVERY former HC alive to the point that they are all worse than the 6th best ST coach in the league. you just can't.)

The comedy gold part of this whole conversation is that THE NAMES DON'T MATTER. Its a talent pool. We didn't explore it. Is that ok? If your answer is "YES" that is a valid answer, just give a reason beyond "Well, the Bears never screw up and they would have done everything they could, so if they didn't it must be because no good candidates exist." That is backwards logic - you don't draw conclusions about the process based on the fact that the process is assumed to be good.

So, to answer your question finally and explicitly, no it doesn't have to factor in WHO IS AVAILABLE and WHO IS WILLING to interview. It is about the process, and whether it is ok to avoid an entire talent pool. Is it ok to compare apples to oranges and choose an apple without ever trying an orange?

Look, it doesn't matter at this point. You've already won. By dragging a good thread back into the same bastardized minutia 1 million times you've already guaranteed that no good or interesting conversation will come around this point. Nobody else is reading, and if they are they sure as heck aren't going to step in front of the "The Bears are good - so the process is good - which means the bears are good" circular logic bullet the way I tend to. Even Mori had enough sense to abandon ship when he saw this thread go off the rails. So, you win. score another one for the old "pretend nothing is ever wrong, and if anyone thinks there is something worth discussing suck the fun out of it by forcing the conversation into irrelevant discussions that branch off into 1million rabbit holes" tactic. Never fails.

Where do you see anyone saying the Bears didn't screw up over and over? I am asking HOW they screwed up. I know I know, it's not about naming who should've been interviewed...it's just about the pool of candidates they ignored...

1) How many other teams interviewed those coaches? Obviously some of them are not realistic options (Gruden, Dungy, Cowher, Saban, etc.) I mean you may as well include all former NFL coaches and any good college HC...let's throw Urban Meyer on the list...and while we're at it, Jimmy Johnson and Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells.
2) Really, there are HUNDREDS of former HCs that we should have interviewed? HUNDREDS of candidates that no other NFL has decided to employ as their HC? How could the Bears to be so lucky to have a pool filled with HUNDREDS of better options and be so dumb to ignore them all.

I don't understand how saying "Gruden didn't interview for ANY job, therefore he isn't interested" is nitpicking. Do you know if the Bears and other NFL teams reached out to him AS A FACT?

If you're saying the discussion cannot factor in who is available and who is willing to interview then THAT is already the end of the discussion.

Again - please point out where I said the Bears did nothing wrong. (somehow I hated Lovie Smith but I think the Bears do no wrong??) If you want a serious discussion on what the Bears did wrong in their coaching search, pardon me for being curious enough to ask who could've been interviewed rather than "omg the cheap bears messed up again."

[Mikefive]

So, to answer your question finally and explicitly, no it doesn't have to factor in WHO IS AVAILABLE and WHO IS WILLING to interview. It is about the process, and whether it is ok to avoid an entire talent pool. Is it ok to compare apples to oranges and choose an apple without ever trying an orange?

First, regarding college coaches... As a group over many years, college coaches have had a rather low success rate when they move up to the NFL level. Isn't that reason enough on some level to eliminate that group?

Regarding former NFL HCs... Here's my question. I've asked it before.

How do you know that the Bears didn't contact candidates who were former NFL HCs and they didn't just say, "not interested"? Maybe they want personnel power. Maybe they want to live in a warm climate. Maybe they like TV jobs better. Maybe they had a problem with the Bears firing a 10-6 coach with a career winning record. Who knows what their reasons might have been?

I have been offered multiple jobs which I immediately declined. Does that mean that the employer wasn't trying to reach out to me? No. It means I could tell right away that interviewing was a waste of time.

So if you KNOW that the Bears haven't reached out to that group. Then you have a point. But I see your conclusion as merely an assumption, since you really don't know.

[thunderspirit]

i've said this before, but:
it's not the best candidate, it's the best candidate available for the job you have.

part of it is ability to perform, and history can be a good indicator of that. but just cos you've done it one place before doesn't mean you can do it elsewhere, whether that's due to motivation or situation. part of that is synergy, part of it is environmental fit, and part of it is out of anyone's control (injuries happen, for instance).

[chewtoy]

1) How many other teams interviewed those coaches? Obviously some of them are not realistic options (Gruden, Dungy, Cowher, Saban, etc.) I mean you may as well include all former NFL coaches and any good college HC...let's throw Urban Meyer on the list...and while we're at it, Jimmy Johnson and Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells.

all good candidates. And not everyone on my list was "unavailable.... lets not forget Kelly was actually HIRED by someone.

2) Really, there are HUNDREDS of former HCs that we should have interviewed? HUNDREDS of candidates that no other NFL has decided to employ as their HC? How could the Bears to be so lucky to have a pool filled with HUNDREDS of better options and be so dumb to ignore them all.

There are hundreds of active and former HC's at the pro and college level. That isn't an exaggeration - heck there are 125 division 1 football programs, so the candidate pool (not the elite candidates, but the pool itself) is hundreds deep

[/QUOTE]
So, we've at least agreed that there is a large list of candidates. Not all of them were available, and not all of them were good. I think we can agree on that point. I think the point Mori was making at the top is this: if we take our ~200 deep candidate pool, rank them from 1-200, and lop off everyone at the top who shoots us down - say its the top 10-15 of those guys. Don't we owe it to ourselves to see how the 16th candidate stacks up relative to the 6th best ST coach? If we don't end up interviewing any of those guys, there is no way to calibrate how well the "ex-hc" pool stacks up against the ST coach pool. And then there is still the distinct possibility that we never contacted those top 16 guys. At least one of them (Kelly) WAS available, and there is less evidence for the "we got shot down" theory than the "we tried and got shot down" theory.

[Dirk]

and hire a coach by training camp. Yeah that sounds like a much better process.

did the bears fubar by not bringing in re-treads and College HC's? Maybe, every time you hire a coach it's a crapshoot. Would you be having this argument if they only involved the hot names and college coaches? "They ignored the people actually working in the league!" ?

Emery had a plan going into this. Too bad he didn't share all of it with us message board fanboi's so we could validate it.

Do I feel they handled it well? for the most part yes. I feel better about who was interviewed than a bunch of mwc/cusa or guys who were once considered the saviour of a nfl franchise, yes.

[Bigwill]

Forget it.