And to be clear, I am genuinely interested in seeing whatever facts are the foundation of the narrative. I just haven't seen them.
Well, there won't be 100% facts when things are opaque and there are no specific leaks to tell the exact story. So, you go by various intel pointers:
1) The moves weren't very fast by WAS. That's not a bad thing, and it could be a sign of a measured approach just by 2 people. It's not taken in isolation though, and it's important to note because it's not really conjecture as an observation.
1b) I think there is a lot to suggest that Macdonald was desired by WAS. I tend to believe that SEA just went BIG, and FAST. I don't know if WAS could do that under the circumstances; what circumstances, though? We don't know the exact details, but again, the whole process has been, at best "deliberate." At worst, "slow." The truth is probably between. I don't think it was THAT slow. I also don't think it was all being deliberate. It was slowed down at leas somewhat by inefficiencies, and there are fairly obvious hints at what those could be.
- lots of articles backing this up, before SEA moves, and certainly after. Before:
https://commanderswire.usatoday.com...ald-the-defensive-sean-mcvay-coaching-search/
- After, you have that quote by Macdonald that I still point to, where he thanks Jody for empowering John to do this. It's a weird choice of words. I think if WAS was willing to match SEA, Mac would be with WAS right now. Reading the tea leaves, that's my guess. I don't think they were able to move that way, maybe because of lack of consensus or maybe they didn't want to go that high (report is that he is getting the highest salary ever for a first-time coach, SEA went *big*). However, if someone says "WAS did not want Mac at all" - that I don't know who will agree with. There is again too much to suggest that isn't the case. Again, another hint at some disagreement.
2) There are now numerous reports of a lack of consensus on coaches during the selection process. This has now been reported by multiple people; I definitely read it from Keim and also read it from another place that I can't find (it was a sidenote / tidbit in a sea of other comments, but I pick up on those because sometimes that's where you get these nuggets). This is coming out in the way that an opaque process does get little things revealed.
3) One thing I don't fully understand from people who seem to question this idea of too many cooks or think that it's very possible that there were mainly 2 people deciding on HC; what did Harris hire Myers and Spielman for? They were hired (particularly Myers) to help set the organizational culture in the right direction, to establish a "winning culture" - Harris respects (Rightly) Myers' ability to pick out people who have that kind of ability. It's pretty clear that if Harris had Myers pegged for that job, it wouldn't just end at GM, right? It would include the other person who would be at the forefront of a winning culture in the NFL, right? It's clear to me that Myers and Spielman were involved in the HC search. To what extent, I don't know, but this HAS been reported now by a couple of reporters. It may be somewhat speculation, but it's founded in sound logic here. I would say it's unsound to think otherwise, because again "setting the winning culture" would definitely involve HC unless Harris is an idiot.
3b) If Peters was the main decider, or it was fundamentally Peters and Harris, I think the decisions would have rolled faster. The reports I have read strongly suggest otherwise, and the clear observables (as above) do back that up pretty well. It's not 100% clarity here, no way, but right now it has that too-many-cooks feeling. If it was truly 1 or 2 people really calling shots simply, I think decisions would have been made faster and there would be less talk about a lack of consensus on the coaches that interviewed (Keim report).
 }})
