OT: Why Whisenhunt turned down the Lions (rumor)
I was listening to Evan & Phillips on MadDog radio this morning and they spent quite a bit of time discussing the Lions coaching situation. Notwithstanding their claim that the people happiest with the Caldwell hire were Packers, Bears & Viking fans I found the reasons they gave on why Whisenhunt turned down the Lions interesting.
According to them, they have heard from two independent sources that Whisenhunt did not join the Lions for two reasons:
1. The Titans offered him 1MM more per year
2. The Lions had Stafford sit in on the interview which made him VERY uncomfortable
I don't know which one is worse (if true). That the Lions low-balled their #1 choice and didn't leave the door open for further negotiation or that they decided to let a player have a say in the selection of the coach. I'm sure behind the scenes that input goes on everywhere but to be brazen enough to have the QB sit in on the interview (allegedly) would send a very powerful message to the HC candidate on who is working at the pleasure of who. And Whisenhunt (allegedly) was not comfortable at all with a structure that had him, in essence, reporting to one of his players.
January 15th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^
January 15th, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
You know you're right and I hadn't thought about that. I had assumed the interview took place in Detroit, not out west.
That being said IF Stafford did attend the interview in Cali that would send an even stronger message to Wis on who his boss really would be.
Side note - question for those in the thread talking about subordinates interviewing potential bosses. Clearly this seems to me to be a generational thing with me, being older, more used to the convential interview structure not one such as JeepinBen and others have described.
My question is this - are any of you "bosses" or have you been a supervisor interviewing for a job with a potential subordinate? I'm wondering if my bias against this egalitarian form of new hire selection resides more in the fact that I havent interviewed as or for anything but supervisory positions for quite some time so this practice seems wierd as Hell to me.
January 15th, 2014 at 1:59 PM ^
"My question is this - are any of you "bosses" or have you been a supervisor interviewing for a job with a potential subordinate?"
I've been involved in both sides.
I was head electrical engineer at a company in my previous job - my interview was partially done by a committee that included two different people who were my subordinates when I got the job.
In my current job we had a head administrator hired by a hiring committee that was about 50% composed of folks who would be direct reports to said administrator.
January 15th, 2014 at 3:12 PM ^
Thanks. Two more questions if you don't mind:
1. Was the "hiring committee" involved in all phases of the actual interview? Were there any situations where the supervisor-to-be interacted independently of the committee with his or her potential boss? If so I think that's where the disconnect comes for me. I have no issue with some involvement in the hiring....where I can issue is if they were involved to the point where no independent conversations could take place. And that is what I believe occurred with Stafford?
2. Are you over or under 35? Again - wondering if this is generational as much as anything.
January 15th, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^
1. Was the "hiring committee" involved in all phases of the actual interview?
In my situation at my last job - yes. They were even involved in the hiring decision.
2. Are you over or under 35? Again - wondering if this is generational as much as anything.
Over. I'll be 40 in 6 months.
January 15th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^
January 15th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^
He's from Georgia - likes the south, golfing, etc.
No state tax in TN - with the Titan's schedule he's looking at 8 games where he doesn't pay state taxes
QBs - If Locker doesn't work out this year, he can draft "his guy", not be stuck with a franchise QB
Living conditions - Nashville > Detroit
January 15th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^
/boom Ramsey'd
January 15th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
It's like the entertainment from Infinite Jest. I can't look away
January 15th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
Whisenhunt should've held up a sign showing Stafford's numbers/QB rating over the last 2 seasons - would've flipped the whole "uncomfortable" feeling right around on Stafford.
January 15th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
Both stepped into excellent jobs, won, and then proceeded to drive said teams into the ground. Of course Switzer was a legendary coach at OU while Caldwell flayed about at Wake.
January 15th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
Whether Stafford sat in or not was irrelevant. The team can't take the cap hit if he was traded or released. The new coach needed to work with him for several years at least. Therefore if someone was going to go it wasn't going to be Stafford. If you didn't have confidence in Stafford, the Detroit job was the wrong one to take.
One thing that really bothers me is the focus everyone including management had on the coach being able to "fix" Stafford. The position was head coach, not quarterback coach. The head coach hires a quarterback coach which would be the key hire to "fix" Stafford. I'd hate to see the head coach on a professional football team that isn't limited in it's number of assistants focusing all of his attention on Stafford. That would tell me that he made poor hires for quarterbacks coach and offensive coordinator.
January 15th, 2014 at 2:29 PM ^
Penalties and discipline may overlap sometimes but are absolutely not the same thing
January 15th, 2014 at 2:33 PM ^
I am sure Whisenhunt had an idea that Stafford was going to be sitting in, since it was reported that he sat in on their very first interview with Caldwell.
January 15th, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^
January 15th, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^
You and I see it the same way. I think though, if you read through this thread, you'll find that sentiment not shared by everyone. I'm guessing it has more to do with age and one's experience in both supervision and interviewing more than anything else but I'm purely speculating here.
I simply cannot fathom having a final interview with the person I would be asked to manage in the room. The key words here are FINAL INTERVIEW. I didnt say I wouldnt meet with them and I didnt say they shouldnt be consulted or be part of a committee. If I wanted the job I would be forced to say what I thought they wanted to hear and I sure as Hell couldnt open up and point to them as a potential problem.
I would've done what Whisenhunt did. I would've taken the other job.
January 15th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^
Are they talented? Yes. Absolutely. But at the end of the day, this is still the Detroit Lions. Regardless of who their coach is, I'll believe the Lions are contenders when I see it.
January 15th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
I think Stafford only met with Jim Caldwell. I think Caldwell may have requested that Stafford be there, since Caldwell watched every play of the Lions season and wanted to meet with Stafford to talk about it.
Didn't the Lions fly to San Diego to meet with Ken Whisenhunt? I mean, did they bring Stafford along with them? I haven't heard any rumors of Stafford meeting with any other coaches during the process.
Anyways, I think Whisenhunt chose the money, Nashville, and the ability to control personnel and scheme over the Lions.
January 15th, 2014 at 4:37 PM ^
January 15th, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^
Is it that unusual? In the corporate world it's not uncommon to have (potential) future direct reports interview candidates and provide input into the hiring process. I don't know why it would be any different in the NFL, especially with a franchise player. Do coaches really think that the franchises are more invested in them than the players signed to $100 million deals?
January 15th, 2014 at 5:25 PM ^
1. Stafford--I would not have confidence in him either, and probably the main reason wisenhunt turned the lions down...He is nto a franchise qb, he is jeff george 2.0....rocket arm,,bad mechanics, bad footwork, no dedication to the film room.
2. Salary cap- The stafford deal is a bad deal, plus mega is getting 18 , and Suh willget a fat deal too
3. Wisenhunt wants to run a 3-4
4. More Money
Can't blame the guy, and with Stafford here long term, Can't blame him, the Lions will never win a playoff game with Stafford at QB.
January 15th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
January 15th, 2014 at 7:20 PM ^
I think Whisenhunt didn't want to give the Fords a BJ. (NSFW)
January 15th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
Always have been and always will. No matter who was hired they would be gone if the brass thinks this team has playoff talent. Schwartz was actually as good as any of them IMO. Things will not change until the Ford's sell the team and I don't think that will happen. They make huge profits on this franchise, even with a poor product the fans fill up the stadium every year.
January 16th, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^
It's sad to think that this stigma that surrounds Detroit isn't going to die in my life time.
Oh the pain.
January 16th, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^
William Clay Ford is 88. Surely you can outlast him.
January 17th, 2014 at 3:35 PM ^
But can he outlast Junior? That's the real question.
January 17th, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^
Well, that depends on whether the curse will carry to the next generation.