Flawed process for hiring head coach

[chris heff]

“Why is the system so flawed? Some of it has to do with what former NY Giants General Manager George Young called the “guard your desk mentality.” Young believed that most NFL executives never want to hire the most qualified person, they want someone who’s easy to get along with and who has minimal coaching experience, which won’t allow them to threaten the General Manager’s authority.”

 

The quote is from an article in the Athletic written by Mike Lombardi entitled “Stop trying to find the next Sean McVay: Why the NFL hiring system is so flawed”. I’ve always believed that was is described above is exactly what Tom Donahoe did with both his hires. The article talks a lot about Colts and Frank Reich hire, good read.

[Thurman#1]

I can definitely believe there are some GMs who feel that way and make decisions based on it.

 

I seriously doubt it's most. A more competent guy can indeed challenge authority. He's also more likely to win more games and thus extend the GM's success and length of tenure. 

 

Besides, the most obviously competent guy in each cycle generally gets hired by somebody even if it's not the first team. I'm willing to believe the process is flawed, but I'm not sure what better way there would be. It's always tough predicting how a guy will do a level up. It might be a case of the Peter Principle, or he might be the right guy. It's really hard to tell, IMHO.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Thurman#1

[WhoTom]

That mentality isn't exclusive to football. Some high-level managers are competent and confident enough that they can hire strong-minded middle-managers. Other executives hire only yes-men. I've seen both kinds, and the ones who hire yes-men tend not to be successful.

 

The ideal is to hire a person with a similar overall vision who's also an independent thinker.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by WhoTom

[Nextmanup]

Ask former Sabres GM Darcy Regier if there's any truth to this! 

 

He very cynically hired Ron Rolston as Sabres HC 100% due to what is put forth in the OP, despite Rolston being nowhere near ready to coach an NHL team.

 

That decision, a little bit later, is what ultimately cost Darcy his job after what? 16 years? with the Sabres.

 

Not only is there a "defend your desk" mentality in sports, there is also a "I don't want to get fired" mentality at the HC and GM levels as well, which puts the individual ahead of team.  

 

That hurts franchises too.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Nextmanup

[C.Biscuit97]

Well we don’t do that in Buffalo!!!! We either hire the coach first and then get him a puppet for GM after.  Or we don’t let the GM hire his coach!  Genius!

[Flip Johnson]

A lot depends on who exactly is in charge.

 

In Buffalo it truly is McDermott. That doesn't necessarily make Beane weak. But McDermott was given wide ranging authority and he found a GM that is implementing his vision.

 

If you think about it, this model is true of NE (Belichick), NO (Payton), and KC (Reid). You can be skeptical and say, 'what makes McDermott an authority on that level?' But I believe the Pegulas have empowered him to make a 10+ year run at this. 

 

In Cleveland or Green Bay it is the GM in charge of finding a HC. Almost by definition you want a guy who won't threaten you and I'm not sure that's the healthiest thing for the success of the team.

[BillsVet]

19 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Well we don’t do that in Buffalo!!!! We either hire the coach first and then get him a puppet for GM after.  Or we don’t let the GM hire his coach!  Genius!

 

There is no one way to organize your management team. 

 

Pete Carroll effectively hired John Schneider in Seattle and that's worked well for them. 

 

[JoeF]

29 minutes ago, Flip Johnson said:

A lot depends on who exactly is in charge.

 

In Buffalo it truly is McDermott. That doesn't necessarily make Beane weak. But McDermott was given wide ranging authority and he found a GM that is implementing his vision.

 

If you think about it, this model is true of NE (Belichick), NO (Payton), and KC (Reid). You can be skeptical and say, 'what makes McDermott an authority on that level?' But I believe the Pegulas have empowered him to make a 10+ year run at this. 

 

In Cleveland or Green Bay it is the GM in charge of finding a HC. Almost by definition you want a guy who won't threaten you and I'm not sure that's the healthiest thing for the success of the team.

I think you nailed the Bills.  I'll add one thing...I think McDermott knew Beane would push back on him if he disagreed with him on any move.   I suspect they have a relationship that I would term is "brotherly" where they can disagree, vehemently sometimes, but still be family. 

[ctk232]

48 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

There is no one way to organize your management team. 

 

Pete Carroll effectively hired John Schneider in Seattle and that's worked well for them. 

 

Texas sized 10-4. What will work depends on the individuals within the system at various roles, and can very much become a chicken v. egg discussion. But without even arguing which is the more effective strategy, having either an HC or GM will usually predicate which way the equation ultimately goes in terms of the balance of power.

 

The important piece in all scenarios however, is placing the authority in the right agent, and the GM/HC duo working in tandem toward a singular goal, through similar methodology and approach.

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by ctk232

[MJS]

I don't think this is the rule. GM's mostly want to make the right decision so that the team can have success. That means finding the best coach possible. Owners certainly feel that way too when they are hiring a coach and/or GM.

 

Certainly there are some examples of GM's trying to hire puppets, but I bet most try to hire the best coach they can find. Having a good coach is essential to winning. Winning brings job security. Losing gets you fired.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, WhoTom said:

That mentality isn't exclusive to football. Some high-level managers are competent and confident enough that they can hire strong-minded middle-managers. Other executives hire only yes-men. I've seen both kinds, and the ones who hire yes-men tend not to be successful.

 

The ideal is to hire a person with a similar overall vision who's also an independent thinker.

 

Unfortunately many in that second group can last a long time.  The biggest problem with corporate America is too many guys with decision making authority focused only on short term gain or protecting the status quo, and not on growing long term value and taking the risks inherent to doing that.  

 

I always try to hire people who are better than I am at the particular thing I'm hiring for.  I want my Controller to be a better accountant than me, my FP&A guy to be a better modeler, etc. 

[quinnearlysghost88]

It's time to surrender to the fact that finding a great head coach or franchise QB or stud WR or shutdown CB is luck. It's LUCK. Yes, you can gain something from the eye test and put them in a category that's above the fray, but beyond that it's luck. Personalities, supporting cast, situations, culture, ownership all play a role in how these individuals perform and that can't be factored into 40 times and W-L records. It's luck. 

[bigK14094]

1 hour ago, JoeF said:

I think you nailed the Bills.  I'll add one thing...I think McDermott knew Beane would push back on him if he disagreed with him on any move.   I suspect they have a relationship that I would term is "brotherly" where they can disagree, vehemently sometimes, but still be family. 

WC Wrigley , a famous industrialist of a century ago  (Wrigley chewing gum anyone?) said  :"In business, when two men think alike, one is not needed"      A difference of opinion should be a strong point of any successful organization, so good choices can be made from alternate viewpoints.  If one is proud or insecure, that approach won't work however.