12 replies to this topic

[Erie]

Trying to word this in a way you can answer...

Dave, you've seen Peter King and the guy from CBS speculate that Lurie's commitment to Howie is a least a factor that's keeping potential coaches from committing to the Eagles. I'm not saying anything about Howie's track record, one way or the other, but it there something to reports?

Would we be on the other side of this process if Lurie wasn't a) committed to keeping Howie; and b) committed to keeping Howie's level of control intact?

No panicking. Love the fact Gus is coming in for a second interview. Just trying to understand the dynamics.

[djbigf]

Dave's Response:

[Hank_TheBody_Fraley]

[PhillyPhan13]

I've been saying this through out the whole coaching search...until I read a name saying that specifically Howie was a factor then it's all nonsense.

I might be willing to think that Howie is a factor if any of the college coaches went to another NFL team, but they didn't.

[CT Eagle]

For a young first time coach offered the chance to work with Howie as an equal and report to Lurie it is probably a good thing.  For a guy like Cowher, it is probably a non starter.

[DaveSpadaro]

I really don't buy that negative perspective. I don't see coaches running away from the job. The Eagles knew going in that the college coaches were likely to stay. So they gave them a shot and got the expected answers. Did it impact the search at all? No, it opened new doors, created new relationships and provided a learning experience. Exactly who is running away from the job? Peter King's point about saying no to the Packers, Giants, Steelers ... makes no sense. If those franchises were 4-12, maybe that would be a realistic question.

The Eagles have a second interview with a very strong candidate whom EVERYONE identified as such long ago and I'm supposed to buy into the idea that people are running away from the job? That makes no sense to me.

[mjkvol]

DaveSpadaro, on 15 January 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Peter King's point about saying no to the Packers, Giants, Steelers ... makes no sense. If those franchises were 4-12, maybe that would be a realistic question.

Absolutely - I made the same point in another thread.

All these national media 'geniuses' have biases and their sources have agendas - take whatever garbage they spew with a huge grain of salt.

[PhillyPhan13]

mjkvol, on 15 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

All these national media 'geniuses' have biases and their sources have agendas - take whatever garbage they spew with a huge grain of salt.

Mj...the voice of reason.  Who would have thought it.

[mjkvol]

PhillyPhan13, on 15 January 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Mj...the voice of reason.  Who would have thought it.

Been that all along, my friend.

The reality of what was going on here over the last several years just escaped a whole lot of people - with the inevitability of the s***t hitting the fan, the fan base kind of collectively woke up out of the coma it had been in.

Some of us saw this coming a loooooooong time ago.    We were just a bit ahead of our time.

[Erie]

Thanks, Dave.

[slick1234]

Just a note to Dave's response. If the Eagles felt that the college coaches were not going to leave their jobs but yet they felt they still wanted to test the waters with these three coaches, then why in the world did they spend 9 hours with the Oregon coach. Of course I am assuming that the "9" hours spent with the coach is correct. Your response was good Dave, but the time spent with these coaches seemed a bit overboard.

[TenaciousEagles]

DaveSpadaro, on 15 January 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

I really don't buy that negative perspective. I don't see coaches running away from the job. The Eagles knew going in that the college coaches were likely to stay. So they gave them a shot and got the expected answers. Did it impact the search at all? No, it opened new doors, created new relationships and provided a learning experience. Exactly who is running away from the job? Peter King's point about saying no to the Packers, Giants, Steelers ... makes no sense. If those franchises were 4-12, maybe that would be a realistic question.

The Eagles have a second interview with a very strong candidate whom EVERYONE identified as such long ago and I'm supposed to buy into the idea that people are running away from the job? That makes no sense to me.

This is a learning experience for them?  When they are trying to hire an NFL HC???? That is some scary stuff...

[Runtherock]

DaveSpadaro, on 15 January 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

I really don't buy that negative perspective. I don't see coaches running away from the job. The Eagles knew going in that the college coaches were likely to stay. So they gave them a shot and got the expected answers. Did it impact the search at all? No, it opened new doors, created new relationships and provided a learning experience. Exactly who is running away from the job? Peter King's point about saying no to the Packers, Giants, Steelers ... makes no sense. If those franchises were 4-12, maybe that would be a realistic question.

The Eagles have a second interview with a very strong candidate whom EVERYONE identified as such long ago and I'm supposed to buy into the idea that people are running away from the job? That makes no sense to me.

O'Brien and both Kellys ran away from the job. It was also reported that Sean Payton was their first choice and Payton of course chose to stay in New Orleans rather than come here and share power with Howie. Then there was Marrone who was so infatuated with working at the NovaCare that he took a job with the freaking Bills rather than waiting on an Eagle interview. So I count three run aways, and two not interested. By the way, I was excited to hear you promote Ray Rhodes as evidence of Jeff Lurie's coach hiring prowess. Quite a turnaround by you, made me weepy.