Zorn "probably the worst NFL hire of all time"??

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm just wondering what major issues people had with the coaching search. Was it how long it took? Did they interview too many candiates or not enough?

Personally I think too many people got wrapped up in all the speculation and the misguided info we were receiving and took that stuff as fact.

We certainly can't say the process wasn't thorough. It probably wasn't a conventional process, but at the same time we are so keyed in on the Skins that I think everything in a situation like this is magnified. And of course when you are dealing with a high profile team and owner, that certainly doesn't help matters. I doubt that if Buffalo went through something similar it would have drawn the same amount of national attention.

See, in my opinion, we're confusing "thorough" with "drawn-out." Yes, it took a long time and there were many candidates interviewed, but the methodology seemed poorly conceived.

First, there's the infamous "cotinuity" spiel at the presser when JG stepped down.

Second, GW has had the "next head coach of the Washington Redskins" label for about 2 yrs plus the support of just about every player on the roster as well as the fans.

Third, what's with multiple 12 hr interview sessions? There's thorough and then there's bizarre. Maybe other teams do this but I've just never heard of it.

Fourth, DS hired his assistants before HC making this a situation that not too many head coaches would want to sign up for.

Fifth, the fact that this was a PR fiasco, punctuated by the fact that we were all set to hire Fassel but because there was a huge collective "no effing way" from Redskins fans, DS got gun shy. Next, we set our sites on Spags but he took a look at the situation and said "thanks but no thanks."

6th, after getting shot down by Spags, DS decides to go with Zorn and we're supposed to believe that DS was so blown away by his initial interview that he thought immediately this guy was a head coaching option? If he was that good, why had not one other team had him on their radar? Does Dan just have an eye for coaching talent? I'm skeptical.

In the end, the choice came off as a fall back option, imo. If you look solely at the time it took, then yes, it's easy to come to the conclusion that it was a well thought out coaching search. But if you actually look at the various missteps along the way, I don't think that's what it was. I'm not saying this will be a bad hire, as I have absolutely no idea what to expect next year. I am saying that this coaching search served the purpose of worsening the Redskins organization's reputation around the league.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

See, in my opinion, we're confusing "thorough" with "drawn-out." Yes, it took a long time and there were many candidates interviewed, but the methodology seemed poorly conceived.

First, there's the infamous "cotinuity" spiel at the presser when JG stepped down.

Best laid plans my friend.

Second, GW has had the "next head coach of the Washington Redskins" label for about 2 yrs plus the support of just about every player on the roster as well as the fans.

He only had that label from the fans. If you recall after 2006 he was very much in the dog house for how poorly the defense performed and rumors at that time started leaking out that they weren't so thrilled with the idea of him becoming a HC. The players did respect him an that was a main reason I wanted him but in the end the players play and the owenr owns. it is his team and if he felt GW wasn't the right guy going forward who are we or even the players to say he is wrong.

Third, what's with multiple 12 hr interview sessions? There's thorough and then there's bizarre. Maybe other teams do this but I've just never heard of it.

Ok so you have never heard of it but when trying to find leader who can direct your team and work with you then maybe taking some time to get to know the guy on a more personal level is actually a good idea. I think many are confusing their idea of what an interview is with what actually happened. I am pretty sure they didn't just sit at a table and ask him questions and then listen to responses for 12 hours. They talked a lot about vision, direction and then specifically about plans. For a football team with complicated mechanisms and personell issues 12 hour "interviews" to discuss all aspects seems rather reasonable in my opinion.

Fourth, DS hired his assistants before HC making this a situation that not too many head coaches would want to sign up for.

I'll grant you this but Zorn seemd ok with it so who knows.

Fifth, the fact that this was a PR fiasco, punctuated by the fact that we were all set to hire Fassel but because there was a huge collective "no effing way" from Redskins fans, DS got gun shy. Next, we set our sites on Spags but he took a look at the situation and said "thanks but no thanks."

Well "PR fiasco" is an opinion. Maybe PR overload is better term in my opinion.
And I think you are generally wrong when it comes to why Fassel wasn't hired. He wasn't hired because VC didn't want to hire him. VC is responsible for that and I have no idea why people think DS cares what the fans think. Most fans think DS doesn't care at all what they think so why would this be any different?

6th, after getting shot down by Spags, DS decides to go with Zorn and we're supposed to believe that DS was so blown away by his initial interview that he thought immediately this guy was a head coaching option? If he was that good, why had not one other team had him on their radar? Does Dan just have an eye for coaching talent? I'm skeptical.

Now we're into specualtion. The two sides are that Spags turned them down and that they didn't want Spags. By most reports they enevr offered him a job and honestly does he seem like the kind of hire that they would have exchewed being thorugh with and just offer him a job. It makes a lot mroe sense that they interviewed him and wasn't very impressed. JLC reported as much. In the end I don't know but I know I don't buy at all that he turned them down. Seriously, a newbie co-ordinator whose defense was really only marginal and only because of the d-line? That sounds like someone DS is dying to hire? Count me as a disbeliever.

In the end, the choice came off as a fall back option, imo. If you look solely at the time it took, then yes, it's easy to come to the conclusion that it was a well thought out coaching search. But if you actually look at the various missteps along the way, I don't think that's what it was. I'm not saying this will be a bad hire, as I have absolutely no idea what to expect next year. I am saying that this coaching search served the purpose of worsening the Redskins organization's reputation around the league.

What missteps? And I would argue our reputation around the league is as low as it can go and only will go up when we win a SB anyways so what the hell do we care? Players love playing for us because we pay and that's all that matters.

[BleedBurgundy]

Every written report regarding the hiring process said that Fassell was set to be hired but the negative fan reaction caused DS to rethink it. As far as Spags shooting us down- that doesn't mean that we offered him the job, it means he withdrew his name from consideration before we even got the chance. I agree you could see this a number of different ways but it looked to me like he got a look at our operations and thought that he would be well served not to have this be his first head coaching job.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Every written report regarding the hiring process said that Fassell was set to be hired but the negative fan reaction caused DS to rethink it. As far as Spags shooting us down- that doesn't mean that we offered him the job, it means he withdrew his name from consideration before we even got the chance. I agree you could see this a number of different ways but it looked to me like he got a look at our operations and thought that he would be well served not to have this be his first head coaching job.

I've read numerous reports and not said that. Some SPECULATED that but none reported it as fact. I guess it's true...if you tell a lie enough it becomes the truth.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I've read numerous reports and not said that. Some SPECULATED that but none reported it as fact. I guess it's true...if you tell a lie enough it becomes the truth.

Perception can be reality. Reported as fact, or reported as speculation, that's what was reported. I don't have any inside info, so I'm left looking at this from my limited perspective. Not claiming to be "in the know." That said, what I've posted above is my opinion on why people are so negative towards this move. Take it for what it's worth. I will say this, has anyone seen a single report that DS wasn't impressed with Fassel and decided not to offer him the job? All along it was Fassell, Fassell, Fassell, Fans Pissed Off, ok here's Zorn. Incorrect conclusion perhaps, but that's sure what it looked like from here.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Players love playing for us because we pay and that's all that matters.

See that's the worst thing about this team. I hate that reputation. I'd rather be something akin to the Pats and Eagles (two teams that I despise) who are known for winning and fiscal responsibility. But whatever.

The other thing that really worries me is that some people (Ross Tucker for one, link in another thread) are saying that Cerrato wanted Zorn because he didn't want his authority challenged by an experienced head coach. IF and that's a big IF, that's true we are screwed.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

See that's the worst thing about this team. I hate that reputation. I'd rather be something akin to the Pats and Eagles (two teams that I despise) who are known for winning and fiscal responsibility. But whatever.

The other thing that really worries me is that some people (Ross Tucker for one, link in another thread) are saying that Cerrato wanted Zorn because he didn't want his authority challenged by an experienced head coach. IF and that's a big IF, that's true we are screwed.

What the Pats and Eagles do (and to a lesser extent the Packers, Titans, Colts, and Chargers) with fiscal responsibility is really just a microchosm of a grander scheme of understanding why teams win, and adjusting their team building properties accordingly.

To be honest, the Skins aren't THAT far off the pace of those teams, and share a lot of the same philosophies. The Skins actually adhere to many principles of fiscal responsibility, and really try to attack the market when it is weakest.

The way we attack the cap is by design, but the plan has gone critically wrong at a few key steps which has prevented this team from getting to the top of the league. Namely, if Lloyd and Archuleta had even a small percentage of a positive effect on the overall on-field talent, those contracts would look great in hindsight. The fact that they were both useless players absoulely backed this team up to the brink of disaster.

Here's the only difference in philosophy between us and New England: When the Pats miss, it's on a second round receiver like Bethel Johnson or Chad Jackson who plays three seasons and then gets cut. When we miss, it costs the team $15 million in cap dollars and triple that in oppertunity costs/draft picks.

Basically, I'm saying the "Redskins way" will work as soon as the team stops missing so badly on a couple of players. Then again, the team is one critical miss away from being so capped out that they have to dismantle the whole thing. Thus...forced to draft smartly.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Then again, the team is one critical miss away from being so capped out that they have to dismantle the whole thing. Thus...forced to draft smartly.

That's kind of like "backing into the playoffs" isn't it? lol. whatever. As long as we can get set up for sustained success (winning seasons, playoffs) I'll be happy.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What the Pats and Eagles do (and to a lesser extent the Packers, Titans, Colts, and Chargers) with fiscal responsibility is really just a microchosm of a grander scheme of understanding why teams win, and adjusting their team building properties accordingly.

To be honest, the Skins aren't THAT far off the pace of those teams, and share a lot of the same philosophies. The Skins actually adhere to many principles of fiscal responsibility, and really try to attack the market when it is weakest.

The way we attack the cap is by design, but the plan has gone critically wrong at a few key steps which has prevented this team from getting to the top of the league. Namely, if Lloyd and Archuleta had even a small percentage of a positive effect on the overall on-field talent, those contracts would look great in hindsight. The fact that they were both useless players absoulely backed this team up to the brink of disaster.

Here's the only difference in philosophy between us and New England: When the Pats miss, it's on a second round receiver like Bethel Johnson or Chad Jackson who plays three seasons and then gets cut. When we miss, it costs the team $15 million in cap dollars and triple that in oppertunity costs/draft picks.

Basically, I'm saying the "Redskins way" will work as soon as the team stops missing so badly on a couple of players. Then again, the team is one critical miss away from being so capped out that they have to dismantle the whole thing. Thus...forced to draft smartly.

This jives with my thinking. The way we do things is not the problem. It has been the talent evaluation that has caused problems. If Arch is the player they thought he was then that move looks like a bargain at this point. Same with Lloyd. I actually like the way we approach things except for one fact. We need to start drafting linemen and using FA as the way to add skill. Skill players are pretty hit and miss mostly while linemen, bot defense and offense, are much easier to scout and usually come cheaper. If we start picking linemen with our good picks we'd be in better shape.

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This jives with my thinking. The way we do things is not the problem. It has been the talent evaluation that has caused problems. If Arch is the player they thought he was then that move looks like a bargain at this point. Same with Lloyd. I actually like the way we approach things except for one fact. We need to start drafting linemen and using FA as the way to add skill. Skill players are pretty hit and miss mostly while linemen, bot defense and offense, are much easier to scout and usually come cheaper. If we start picking linemen with our good picks we'd be in better shape.

Well i think we have made progress there. Arch was GW's pick and his alone. Cerrato fought it. Gibbs backed GW and got him what he wanted. Llloyd... that was ALL Gibbs. The D linemen we got in the draft, Blanche undoubtably had alot to do with them... the people responsible for most of the bad personnel decisions this organization has made in recent years are gone. The people responsible for the good ones are still here.

Cerrato will be a good GM. He's a good personnel guy. Sure, he's made some big mistakes... but not recently. I seriously expect all but one or two of our offseason acquisitions (FA and draft) to pan out under his management.