Amy Adams Strunk likely behind stripping Brian Callahan of his play-calling(Terry McCormick)

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 minutes ago, ctm said:

Maybe part of the problem is you didn't know the  process, as evidence above.  

I knew they interviewed other people. I didn't know it was ten. What I remembered is they interviewed Callahan first and he was a foregone conclusion afterwards. 

Edited October 18, 2025 by IsntLifeFunny

[Callidus]

14 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Read above. The guy didn't even know the basic rules of the game. The process was obviously very flawed. 

That isnt something that comes up in the hiring process though. It would be like looking for a plumber and asking them what you call it when water is coming out of a pipe where it shouldn't. You assume they know the basics. 

 

But hell, maybe im wrong, the first time i was interviewed for a construction job they asked if i could read a tape measure and i looked at them like they were retarded. Which sadly is a needed question iv found out over time lol. 

 

Edit: the point being the higher up you go the ladder the number of things you are expected to know without question goes up. 

Edited October 18, 2025 by Callidus

[Titans279]

2 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

I've often found that people really struggle with good process isn't foolproof and bad process gets lucky.

A part of any good process should be reevaluating and making adjustments as needed. Some kind of post mortem. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, Callidus said:

That isnt something that comes up in the hiring process though. It would be like looking for a plumber and asking them what you call it when water is coming out of a pipe where it shouldn't. You assume they know the basics. 

 

But hell, maybe im wrong, the first time i was interviewed for a construction job they asked if i could read a tape measure and i looked at them like they were retarded. Lol

I would think it ties in with general knowledge of game management. I get your point, and I'm not saying teams are likely to drill coaches about rules like that, but the not knowing rules part wasn't the first time over the past year and a half where he's said things, or made in-game moves, that show a distinct lack of awareness of the game itself. That should have obviously been fleshed out in the interview process. The guy genuinely doesn't understand football or game theory. This was glaringly evident this year with his multiple coaching bungles and almost schizophrenic behavior switching between incorrect strategic aggressiveness or conservatism. 

[TerryBoats]

9 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

I've often found that people really struggle with good process isn't foolproof and bad process gets lucky.

 

I'm sure they'll take a hard look at the process as they move forward. They're not going to be like us - filling in the blanks on what the process was and guessing that it was okay. They know what it was and they're going to consciously and conscientiously pick the next variation of that process. It'll probably be pretty similar.

Do you feel that a group of people who were somehow sold on Callahan are capable of the self-evaluation and correction self-necessary to avoid another horrible hire?  It seems that the better solution is to completely keep anyone involved in that process out of the next one.  

[Jamalisms]

2 minutes ago, TerryBoats said:

Do you feel that a group of people who were somehow sold on Callahan are capable of the self-evaluation and correction self-necessary to avoid another horrible hire?  It seems that the better solution is to completely keep anyone involved in that process out of the next one.  

 

I'll say it again: 

 

Holtz was a warning sign and I quibble a little bit over his existing in the presence of great quarterbacks being the same as a guy who was integral in their development, growth, progression, success or ... anything ... but those aren't substantial objections.

 

Other than that, I don't know how you identify his particular problems without seeing it fail first. Some jobs are like that. I think head coach is one of those.

[Callidus]

13 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I would think it ties in with general knowledge of game management. I get your point, and I'm not saying teams are likely to drill coaches about rules like that, but the not knowing rules part wasn't the first time over the past year and a half where he's said things, or made in-game moves, that show a distinct lack of awareness of the game itself. That should have obviously been fleshed out in the interview process. The guy genuinely doesn't understand football or game theory. This was glaringly evident this year with his multiple coaching bungles and almost schizophrenic behavior switching between incorrect strategic aggressiveness or conservatism. 

I think @Jamalismspost above me covers this. We never say Callahan in full control of an offense let alone a team. You can ask all the questions, but that doesn't mean they will say the stuff for you to know they dont got it till they are on the job sometimes. 

[oldschool]

2 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Yeah they might want to rethink that step in the process and actually interview multiple candidates. 

 

That also actually not true. McDonald and Quinn among others interviewed for the job. Callahan was the first in person interview. Now I will say they probably should have interviewed more guys face to face. 

[oldschool]

38 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

I've often found that people really struggle with good process isn't foolproof and bad process gets lucky.

 

I'm sure they'll take a hard look at the process as they move forward. They're not going to be like us - filling in the blanks on what the process was and guessing that it was okay. They know what it was and they're going to consciously and conscientiously pick the next variation of that process. It'll probably be pretty similar.

 

Nothing pisses me off more on this board when I agree with a post of yours. Well done.

[Titans279]

I won't flay the guy without seeing the actual quote and the context, but I would hope there was more to it than "the process was correct" which makes can signal an inability to self-evaluate and improve. There is always something you can improve and the only way you know is by going through it.

 

 

[TerryBoats]

27 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

I'll say it again: 

 

Holtz was a warning sign and I quibble a little bit over his existing in the presence of great quarterbacks being the same as a guy who was integral in their development, growth, progression, success or ... anything ... but those aren't substantial objections.9l9

 

Other than that, I don't know how you identify his particular problems without seeing it fail first. Some jobs are like that. I think head coach is one of those.

  There's always the element of the unknown, but that element is far too great when you're elevating a guy who has never called plays to call plays AND be the head coach.  They are putting these guys under contract to be the coach of the team for half a decade... It just seems like they should be making more informed decisions based on some sort of track record rather than depending entirely on dumb luck for someone who has none. 

 

The problems that I identified were that the coaching staff he was on had more bottom 5 offenses than top 5, and QBs on IR almost annually.   What was the potential payoff we thought that we could possibly get here to offset such a major risk?

[IsntLifeFunny]

31 minutes ago, Callidus said:

I think @Jamalismspost above me covers this. We never say Callahan in full control of an offense let alone a team. You can ask all the questions, but that doesn't mean they will say the stuff for you to know they dont got it till they are on the job sometimes. 

I understand that. Some people interview well and of course you believe he has a baseline intelligence and understanding of the game. 

 

What I'm seeing out of this is they did likely very little in regards to fact finding about his understanding of the game. They also likely did not peel enough layers back to understand whether he truly has a conservative or aggressive mindset. It's unbelievable to me, but he was more conservative than Vrabel. That obviously wasn't the plan, so what went wrong? 

 

Once again, these are post mortem questions any serious organization should obviously be asking themselves. The fact the guy in charge of football operations apparently thinks everything in the process was fine doesn't sit well with me. 

[oldschool]

10 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I understand that. Some people interview well and of course you believe he has a baseline intelligence and understanding of the game. 

 

What I'm seeing out of this is they did likely very little in regards to fact finding about his understanding of the game. They also likely did not peel enough layers back to understand whether he truly has a conservative or aggressive mindset. It's unbelievable to me, but he was more conservative than Vrabel. That obviously wasn't the plan, so what went wrong? 

 

Once again, these are post mortem questions any serious organization should obviously be asking themselves. The fact the guy in charge of football operations apparently thinks everything in the process was fine doesn't sit well with me. 

 

Some 2nd hand quote reposted from russ doesn't mean they arent doing a post mortem. Brinker was involved in selecting Callahan. He knows he needs to get the next hire right. I also dont buy that they somehow missed how conservative callahan would be or just how much he would be unable to handle game management. Some times guys interview really well and then cant handle the step up in duties and things suffer. His conservative nature was a major shocker, im sure it was for Brinker and Borgonzi as well. Its one thing to protect your young QBs, what we see was a different level. I think a big factor in that was his dad's influence on the scheme in general. Getting Bill Callahan was universally praised but something was very wrong there. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

3 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

Some 2nd hand quote reposted from russ doesn't mean they arent doing a post mortem. Brinker was involved in selecting Callahan. He knows he needs to get the next hire right. I also dont buy that they somehow missed how conservative callahan would be or just how much he would be unable to handle game management. Some times guys interview really well and then cant handle the step up in duties and things suffer. His conservative nature was a major shocker, im sure it was for Brinker and Borgonzi as well. Its one thing to protect your young QBs, what we see was a different level. I think a big factor in that was his dad's influence on the scheme in general. Getting Bill Callahan was universally praised but something was very wrong there. 

I understand it's just a comment, but it cuts to the heart of the fact Brinker is the only football person involved in all of this. His flippant comment about the process being just fine raised my eyebrow. Nothing more. 

[Titans279]

I wonder if passing on LaFleur for being too green influenced her willingness to go with Callahan. He really should have at least been a successful true OC somewhere first. 
 

Thing is, I bet bring a full OC (and having to deal with a domineering asshole like Vrabel) helped LaFleur mature into being ready for the HC role.