The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Now you've dodged the question in it's current form. If you don't want to answer it just say you don't want to answer it. I'm not saying either one of those candidates should have gotten the job, I'm saying there is a process of elimination and the Redskins originally eliminated Zorn then had to come back to him. Why???

There's no way I want to walk into a situation where I have a hand picked staff where someone elses hand has done the picking. It's far too easy to get fired from coaching jobs to rely on what others feel is the best fit. As the head coach you have to KNOW your guys are loyal to you and not the guy who was hired by the owner. Especially with your coordinators. In this business you don't just hire someone because the owner tells you to; the owner needs to know his limitations when it comes to football decisons. Unlike the business world where our current owner may have had success micromanaging it doesn't translate in the NFL.

Thundersloth wrote:Cowher was not an option at the time the choice was made.
JSPB22
I'm not saying he was. I just want to know which coach has more experience and track record of success in the NFL.

Joe Gibbs was an untested HC when he was hired in '81. Now he's in the HOF.

Here are some differences between Joe Jackson Gibbs and Jim Zorn and the way they were hired.

1. Joe Gibbs was an offensive coordinator with Bucs and the Chargers, so he wasn't new to play calling.

2. Joe Gibbs was NOT hired as the offensive coordinator and then hired as the head coach.

3. Joe Gibbs was sought out and suggested to Jack Kent Cooke by a guy who knew what he was doing, Bobby Beathard.

When it's all said and done, Jim Zorn might be a good head coach, but the process is bassackwards. There may be many ways to build a winning franchise, but it appears that after 12 years as owner, Dan Snyder still has no clue.

All of that is true, but it also misses my point, which was that while Cowher's resume is more impressive, that is only because he has more experience at this point in their respective careers. Come back with the same question after Zorn has been a HC for 16 seasons with the same team, and you may find that Zorn's resume is more impressive. At this point we can't know. I do agree that they probably had to make Zorn the HC because they hired him as OC before they hired a HC.

Thundersloth wrote:There's no way I want to walk into a situation where I have a hand picked staff where someone elses hand has done the picking

How can a coach be loyal to either their boss or their boss's boss over the other in a functioning organization? That means they're not on the same team. Ultimately everyone works for the owner and if a coach is loyal to the head coach OVER the owner they can and ultimately will be fired. This is reality in ALL business, NFL is not an exception.

Any way you cut, the FO looked terrible during the hiring process. Like frikkin´ bumbling rookies.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Thundersloth wrote:There's no way I want to walk into a situation where I have a hand picked staff where someone elses hand has done the picking

How can a coach be loyal to either their boss or their boss's boss over the other in a functioning organization? That means they're not on the same team. Ultimately everyone works for the owner and if a coach is loyal to the head coach OVER the owner they can and ultimately will be fired. This is reality in ALL business, NFL is not an exception.

Yes, but I would agree with his premise that a HC coming in would not want to have his staff already in place. If you're going to be held responsible for the team's performance, then you would want to be the one to pick your staff.

How can a coach be loyal to either their boss or their boss's boss over the other in a functioning organization? That means they're not on the same team.

Kazoo, I'm a bit slow today, can you clarify this for me. I don't understand if you mean why an assistant coach needs to be loyal to the head coach or the owner or if you mean the assistant coach has to show loyalty to the owner only? In normal functioning organizations, the owner will usually yield the authority to his head coach to hire his own staff. Therefore the reason the assistant coach is in the organization is because he was hired by the head coach and is more or less going to be on the same page as the head coach.

Like I said before, you can't just throw guys together, especially on the same side of the ball who don't agree on the main points and have a quality football staff.

Thundersloth wrote:Kazoo, I'm a bit slow today, can you clarify this for me. I don't understand if you mean why an assistant coach needs to be loyal to the head coach or the owner or if you mean the assistant coach has to show loyalty to the owner only?

You're using different words, which makes me agree or disagree with your point. I'm not sure if they're the same to you or different and I'm not getting which you're using when.

Thundersloth wrote:In normal functioning organizations, the owner will usually yield the authority to his head coach to hire his own staff. Therefore the reason the assistant coach is in the organization is because he was hired by the head coach and is more or less going to be on the same page as the head coach.

Before you said "loyal" and here you said "on the same page." I would agree with "on the same page." Likely they worked together and certainly they would share a philosophy. There's no problem with a conservative OC being loyal to a run and gun HC, but they are probably NOT on the same page. The staff needs to share a philosophy with the coach. But regarding "loyalty" if there is a conflict between being "loyal" to the HC and being "loyal" to the owner then the HC should be fired because that can never work and the owner is...the owner.

Thundersloth wrote:In normal functioning organizations, the owner will usually yield the authority to his head coach to hire his own staff.

I mostly agree, but disagree with the connotation of the word "yield." An owner will certainly be involved in and agree with the decision. But the decision will be driven by the HC. When I hire people, I almost always get who I want. They usually interview with my manager who has veto power. I can't remember it being used over my view, but if for some reason my manager hates the hire I would not hire them. In the end, in a functioning business the owner would NEVER cede being the owner.

Anyway, my understanding with Zorn was that they were hiring defensive HC's and had cleared Zorn with them already. Had they hired an offensive HC who wasn't Zorn I'd agree it would get tricker.

El Mexican wrote:Any way you cut, the FO looked terrible during the hiring process. Like frikkin´ bumbling rookies.

In what way?

Officially locked post game thread.