I think the context matters. If the first interview was more introductory, and not 'selective' (ie... they weren't screening who would go through to the 2nd interview in any way) I have less problem with it. I agree, at first blush seems weird that Adam Peters wouldn't be included. Maybe they are trying to mitigate Peters inexperience at GM. Then again, if that's the intent, the fact that Harris has zero football experience/knowledge and Myers is a basketball guy, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I have already said it a few times, but now that we have a HC, Harris needs to back the **** out of the equation. Let the football folks manage it all. I would've preferred he did so after Peters was hired.
Exactly, and I think we're all on the same page here. Quinn may work out! I think we are all still excited. That doesn't mean we don't look at the process and do some simple analysis on what they did and why. In the end, it looks like this process took longer than others very possibly because of maybe a lack of trust in Peters to do it by himself, and also maybe a LOT of desire (by Harris) to have Myers heavily involved. I suspect both of those things are true. Adding in Spielman, Mayhew... most of us here have been through a few interviews, and you know, when I am doing the hiring, I am very aware of how many people I put candidates in front of. On their side it can look bad, and on my side, I get lots of differing opinions which can harm the ability to move forward. I try to pick out 2 or 3 really sharp interviewers who can help, and that's usually my limit.
Great article. It does show that they were detailed, but I still feel too many people were there based on my own experiences in hiring and in what played out here. Not saying they didn't get a good one. Not saying that "diligence" is a bad thing; but I have just seen that in general it's better to trust people to do the job assigned to them, and in a lot of well-run orgs, the GM has more say in the HC decision. It's not a group decision. In the end, then, the GM "owns" that decision, and the GM has to work closely with the HC too. Like Lynch and Shan. This also really does give some cred to the idea that Macdonald's comment about "empowering" the GM was indeed a commentary on the Washington group; I am positive we were the number one choice for Macdonald, all things being equal. However, in his view, they were extremely unequal. WAS didn't make a commitment, SEA did, and it was a GIANT commitment. That matters, good for them, hopefully not bad for us. Hopefully "diligence" did not cost us. There are also reports of hesitancy to pair a first-time GM with a first-time HC. Not sure that should have been a huge concern or not, but it seems it may have slowed the process with our "party of 5" (words from article).
--
I haven't watched the Quinn presser but I did see the clip
Bulldog put in about his reasoning for choosing Kliff and Whitt. Man, that's refreshing! Sounds a lot like what some of you guys were saying, a DC who looks at who was tough to play against. Sound thinking from a WAS coach, and not empty platitudes? That's good to hear. "He's really good, he's been doing it for a long time, I worked with him before" - none of those things recommend as strongly as what Quinn said about whose scheme is actually tough to prepare for. That's good stuff. We'll see if it all translates.
I think I'm more pumped about Whitt than Kliff. Saw some clips from him talking about how Quinn would get psyched, and he said, you know I would just be thinking, what's next, who should we sub in now, what should we do next. It honestly sounds like he is already right there for DC responsibility next to HC Quinn!
 }})
