Process vs Outcome

[jimmifli]

In business management there is a lot of emphasis put into evaluating processes rather than the outcomes. This is done because at the time of the decision there is often a lot of uncertainty, usually due to incomplete information or insufficient resources required to guarantee success. So managers are forced to make decisions using the resources available within the time available, and this means they'll make some bad decisions but hopefully some good ones too. The quality of the decision can't be judged based on the outcome, which has a large component of chance. This concept is why poker players focus on their reasoning and how they played the hand and not whether they won or lost. Over the long run making decisions based on a logical and disciplined process will pay off with more good decisions.

My problem with this recent hiring isn't who we hired... it's how. My first problem is that Russ Brandon is making the hiring decisions. It should be the GM, so Nix. And if Nix isn't a real GM anymore than he should be out. If the real GM is Whaley than he should hire his own coach. If he isn't qualified to hire a coach, he should be out too. Next problem is with how they conducted the search. Russ Brandon didn't "look under every rock", he hired a guy from his hometown. He interviewed a few recently canned coaches and then hired the guy he wanted from the beginning. And for all the talk of analytics, he sure sounds like a few hours of interviews was the determining factor.

Now don't get me wrong, Marrone might turn out to be a great coach. But that's like drawing to an inside straight at this point. The process sucked, the only way the outcome works is luck. That doesn't exactly signal change. And it doesn't bode well for the future.

[YardRat]

You're assuming the process didn't start before Gailey was fired.

[jimmifli]

You're assuming the process didn't start before Gailey was fired.

Not really.

[YardRat]

Not really.

Sure you are.

How do you know the process didn't start mid-season, and the FO didn't start compiling names, doing research, and whittling down a list of possible candidates to a manageable number at that time, or even prior?

[jimmifli]

Sure you are.

How do you know the process didn't start mid-season, and the FO didn't start compiling names, doing research, and whittling down a list of possible candidates to a manageable number at that time, or even prior?

Based on who was interviewed that seems pretty implausible. I guess he whittled his list down to a manageable number that didn't include a single OC/DC from a playoff team, just a couple of guys that recently got canned and two college coaches. That's quite a list.

[cookie G]

My problem with this recent hiring isn't who we hired... it's how. My first problem is that Russ Brandon is making the hiring decisions. It should be the GM, so Nix. And if Nix isn't a real GM anymore than he should be out. If the real GM is Whaley than he should hire his own coach. If he isn't qualified to hire a coach, he should be out too. Next problem is with how they conducted the search. Russ Brandon didn't "look under every rock", he hired a guy from his hometown. He interviewed a few recently canned coaches and then hired the guy he wanted from the beginning. And for all the talk of analytics, he sure sounds like a few hours of interviews was the determining factor.

Now don't get me wrong, Marrone might turn out to be a great coach. But that's like drawing to an inside straight at this point. The process sucked, the only way the outcome works is luck. That doesn't exactly signal change. And it doesn't bode well for the future.

Stealin' my stuff again, I see.

I created a bit of a stir elsewhere with this.

[DraftBoy]

Based on who was interviewed that seems pretty implausible. I guess he whittled his list down to a manageable number that didn't include a single OC/DC from a playoff team, just a couple of guys that recently got canned and two college coaches. That's quite a list.

You're operating under an assumption that they wanted any of the current OC/DC candidates in the playoffs. While many people were high on names like Roman, Bradley, Gruden, and others it doesn't mean our consortium was.

Also, and this is very important, a team knows before they even conduct interviews if a coach is open to their job or not. They won't waste time interviewing a coach whose not interested and that is usually done through contact with the coaches agent and the agent indicates and interest or not so neither party wastes their time.

There is a lot of assumptions you're asking people to take in belief that the process is flawed when we only have a very small part of the whole picture.

[cookie G]

You're operating under an assumption that they wanted any of the current OC/DC candidates in the playoffs. While many people were high on names like Roman, Bradley, Gruden, and others it doesn't mean our consortium was.

Also, and this is very important, a team knows before they even conduct interviews if a coach is open to their job or not. They won't waste time interviewing a coach whose not interested and that is usually done through contact with the coaches agent and the agent indicates and interest or not so neither party wastes their time.

There is a lot of assumptions you're asking people to take in belief that the process is flawed when we only have a very small part of the whole picture.

You're um...giving the "consortium" (if there is one), a pretty big benefit of the doubt here.

Prior to the search, the consortium head said he would leave "no stone unturned".

Afterwards, he described the search as "thorough and exhaustive".

These can be terms of art, and mean different things under different circumstances.

This is a team on its fifth coaching search in 11 years and its 6th coach. This is a team that hasn't made the playoffs in 13 years, and has shown no improvement in a decade...as well as a propensity for making the same mistakes. The head of the "consortium" is not a football guy, with little to no experience in selecting NFL quality personnel.

With these circumstances in mind...if you are really overturning every stone, and being thorough and exhaustive...

-With his duties as marketing executive of an NFL team, it is highly unlikely that he knows the specifics of the dozens of successful college football programs, and the strengths and weaknesses of each staff. For instance, there were about 30 teams ranked higher than Syracuse this year. If you are being thorough and exhaustive, can you become educated on these teams within a few days, while at the same time holding press conferences, travelling, conducting other interviews and contemplating the numerous NFL coaches, past and present that may be available?

And after all of this self education and research, only 2 were considered worthy of an interview?

-If you are being thorough and exhaustive, and turning over every stone, and making sure you don't make the mistakes of the four previous failures, can you dismiss out of hand every assistant coach of every successful (i.e. playoff ) NFL team? Is it likely to believe that none of the offensive/defensive coordinators of the 12 playoff teams were deemed worthy of an interview? Not one?

Only one coordinator from the other 19 NFL teams? Especially when you've only considered 2 college coaches?

-There are 32 head coaching jobs in the NFL, only 7 (or is it 6?), became available this year. Many get their first shot, a second chance or, for some from the college ranks, a shot at the big leagues. Some may be content where they are, some may have other reasons, but nonetheless, it remains an exclusive position in the field. About as exclusive as you can get.
Out of all potential candidates, from both the NFL and the college ranks, only 5 were willing to interview? Only 2 recently fired coaches, 2 college coaches and one coordinator were willing to sit for an interview?

What you are talking about are really pretty implausible scenarios. Especially considering that this all took place (or failed to take place, in a matter of a few days). And especially considering past failures, what is at stake, and the inexperience of the decision maker in these circumstances. And especially considering that the decision maker himself described the search as "thorough and exhaustive".

I'd feel better if he just came out and said, "I had my guy in mind, we went after him and got him", rather than throwing out buzzwords.

At least I'd know he was being honest.

[kishoph]

How long were they suppose to make their search ? Brandon did say "I’ll leave no stone unturned", but he also said if they find the right man they'll pull the trigger. Would it have better if they would of continued to interview other candidates, while some team grabbed the guy they really liked. Also leaving no stone unturned could pertain to looking into everything about a possible candidate, not necessarily looking at dozens of them. There are people that would complain either way it was done, whether they just need to be heard or are miserable people, who knows.

[sam5767]

Perhaps it was an exhaustive search....we really only know of the people they actually interviewed....we don't know who the "consortium" researched behind the scenes and ended up crossing off their list. Why bother interviewing someone who you know you won't hire...doen't mean you didn't look into that person, just didn't waste time interviewing them. We were in competition with seven other teams for a coach...I like the fact that we made a decision. Was it the right one? Did Brandon have this guy already in mind before hand? Hopefully and perhaps....only time will tell...

[kishoph]

If Brandon and the others did have Marrone in mind previously, good for them, that means that they didn't have much thought about retaining Gailey. Why should they have sat on their hands and wait till the last minute.

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/How-the-Bills-landed-Doug-Marrone/00fc8b61-c162-4166-b1aa-803ddf4c0ce6

[YardRat]

This is a team on its fifth coaching search in 11 years and its 6th coach.

Actually this team was conducting it's first coaching search, as a team. Brandon and Overdorf may be holdovers in the organization, but Nix has been part of the team for only Gailey and Marrone, Whaley for just Marrone.

You are also assuming that Brandon and Overdorf were part of the process for the previous hirings of Jauron, Wiiliams, Mularkey, et al, which is questionable at best especially considering who had held the positions of President and GM during those searches.

I don't completely dismiss the possibility that the process was somewhat 'willy-nilly' as you and jimmi success because there is no real evidence to prove otherwise, but on the flip side you can't assume it was, for the same reason. In actuality, the time frame and efficiency would suggest it wasn't just thrown together, but rather the culmination of a process that started well before Gailey was actually canned.

[coastal]

Russ Brandon is a liar... not only with the "exhaustive and thorough" BS but as Jimmi points out, with the he's going to empower his GM to be a GM crap.

his hands are ALL OVER this hire.

This **** head is another Tom Donahoe. The only difference is he might not be an NFL mole sent here to destroy the place. He'll destroy it out of sheer incompetence.

[kishoph]

Russ Brandon is a liar... not only with the "exhaustive and thorough" BS but as Jimmi points out, with the he's going to empower his GM to be a GM crap.

his hands are ALL OVER this hire.

This **** head is another Tom Donahoe. The only difference is he might not be an NFL mole sent here to destroy the place. He'll destroy it out of sheer incompetence.

I was really tempted to give you a thanks on this, because it made me laugh so hard.

[Buckets]

Perhaps it was an exhaustive search....we really only know of the people they actually interviewed....we don't know who the "consortium" researched behind the scenes and ended up crossing off their list. Why bother interviewing someone who you know you won't hire...doen't mean you didn't look into that person, just didn't waste time interviewing them. We were in competition with seven other teams for a coach...I like the fact that we made a decision. Was it the right one? Did Brandon have this guy already in mind before hand? Hopefully and perhaps....only time will tell...

Plus almost everyone interviewed about the hire had positive things to say.

[Joe Fo Sho]

You really think Brandon is the only one making the hiring decisions?

[Mouldsie]

Didn't we interview McCoy?


I do think there are valid points to consider here

[jimmifli]

So now that Nix is gone and Whaley is the GM... Why didn't our GM get to hire his own coach?

[coastal]

So now that Nix is gone and Whaley is the GM... Why didn't our GM get to hire his own coach?objection.

Immaterial and leading the witness who doesn't want to be lead.

[Dr. Lecter]

Who says he did not?

[bleve]

Well, regarding drafting - Whaley said that "information" makes the decision - i.e. if you do enough research, and get enough information about a player, the decision is right there.
I would imagine in hiring a coach he would have the same philosophy.

Maybe they did start the info gathering early, but for face value, there was simply not enough time to do due diligence. I will say though, on the other hand if you are indecisive - you may lose your ideal candidate.

So I get the premise of the OP, and I agree.

[jimmifli]

Who says he did not?
Russ Brandon, Buddy Nix and Doug Whaley.

[DraftBoy]

So now that Nix is gone and Whaley is the GM... Why didn't our GM get to hire his own coach?

Based on reports I would say that he did. Schefter and La Canfora both reported that Whaley has been functioning as the GM while Nix has been only a title. We will never get the full details but its a safe assumption that Marrone was Whaley's pick. There is no way they hired him without Whaley wanting him and there is no way they didn't know Nix was leaving. This has been in the works for over a year now in terms of Nix to Whaley transition.

- - - Updated - - -


Russ Brandon, Buddy Nix and Doug Whaley.

Whaley said Doug Marrone was not his choice?

[Dr. Lecter]

Russ Brandon, Buddy Nix and Doug Whaley.

Brandon and Nix also said that Nix was not retiring for a long time.

[jimmifli]

Based on reports I would say that he did. Schefter and La Canfora both reported that Whaley has been functioning as the GM while Nix has been only a title.

I have trouble with that too. If it's true, it's stupid and makes it hard for other teams to deal with us. But most of what I read talked about the committee approach to the hire.




Whaley said Doug Marrone was not his choice?
Is that what I said? Don't be an ass.

All three indicated the hire was a team effort. I haven't read anything saying that the decision was Whaley's.

[TedMock]

The committee approach doesn't mean Whaley didn't get the coach he wanted. There is no evidence at all that should lead us to make that huge leap.

If it was a committee approach and Whaley absolutely did not like Marrone then there is no other answer than "Whaley's opinion had little to no weight." I do not believe that to be the case at all. Anything is possible, but that just seems ridiculous on any level. If it was indeed a team effort and Whaley's opinion had any substantive weight, then Marrone would have, at the very least, been one of the guys he liked.

We know they interviewed coordinators, fired heads and college coaches. Other than that, we have no idea what the actual process or weighting of opinions was. We won't find out either. They will all wisely keep that private and just keep giving the general line that it was a committee approach. Good for them.

[The Jokeman]

I'm sure if Whaley didn't agree with the Marrone hiring he would never had accepted the position of GM to begin with. Yet it's debatable who will be accountable of his decision and the choice to select Manuel etc. As he does have an opt out if the heat ever gets turned in his directions since the choices weren't officially "his". In terms of him getting the job, it's hard what to make of it as 1) he was was an in house promotion that we've seen numerous times with this organization and see it typically fail. yet 2)He originally started outside the organization and it was good to see him to name some new scouts when he got his new title. Which tells me things might be changing. Yet I can't say things change alone for change sake is good because there is one constant that his remained since this franchise began and it still remains with Ralph Wilson as owner. It's easy to blame solely him for the ineptness of this franchise but because he's been the only constant it's easy not to blame him. Yet I harp on this point with every debate on Wilson. As to me he has done great things to allow a small market team to remain in the league and his his team as efficient as any other team out there from a business perspective but been horrible at running it from a football team perspective. Time will tell if things will change under Whaley, Marrone and Manuel but based on our history it doesn't look good. Yet that's why change always invokes hope that things will turn around yet thus far I don't like everything that was done this off season as I don't we addressed all the problems this team has on the field and felt it could have been with a more aggressive approach in free agency.

[jimmifli]

The committee approach doesn't mean Whaley didn't get the coach he wanted. There is no evidence at all that should lead us to make that huge leap.
I agree completely.

But lets look at objectively. Choose which process you prefer:

A) A GM that is about to be replaced, a marketing guy that was previously involved in football decisions with catastrophic results and the future GM (currently in a junior role) work as a committee to select the next coach.
B) Our GM evaluates the candidates and hire's his choice without the interference of superiors that have previously been involved in very poor coaching hires.

Personally I choose B. Maybe Whaley, would have selected Marrone anyways, and he might turn out to be an awesome coach, but that doesn't mean the process didn't suck. I can't think of a single advantage gained by having Russ Brandon or Buddy Nix have any invovlement in the coach selection. Can you?

[K-Gun]

I agree completely.

But lets look at objectively. Choose which process you prefer:

A) A GM that is about to be replaced, a marketing guy that was previously involved in football decisions with catastrophic results and the future GM (currently in a junior role) work as a committee to select the next coach.
B) Our GM evaluates the candidates and hire's his choice without the interference of superiors that have previously been involved in very poor coaching hires.

Personally I choose B. Maybe Whaley, would have selected Marrone anyways, and he might turn out to be an awesome coach, but that doesn't mean the process didn't suck. I can't think of a single advantage gained by having Russ Brandon or Buddy Nix have any invovlement in the coach selection. Can you?

The advantage for Whaley is that if the Marrone regime totally ****s the bed, then Whaley may get a stay of execution and get to pick "his" coach. And the same can be said of Manuel in regards to Marrone if he's a total bust then he can go out and get "his qb," b/c Manuel was Nix's guy. Forgive me for speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if built in excuses that allow Nix to take the blame in the case of failure were part of the process.

[jimmifli]

The advantage for Whaley is that if the Marrone regime totally ****s the bed, then Whaley may get a stay of execution and get to pick "his" coach. And the same can be said of Manuel in regards to Marrone if he's a total bust then he can go out and get "his qb," b/c Manuel was Nix's guy. Forgive me for speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if built in excuses that allow Nix to take the blame in the case of failure were part of the process.

Certainly that's a reason why he would agree to it. But it's not a process a team primarily concerned with winning would concern itself with. When you design a process you need to start with the desired outcome. In this case winning, and given that desired outcome you design the process most likely to achieve that outcome. So, in my mind anyway that's option B.

Now if the desired outcome was covering Russ's ass, or cost savings from having to fire a guy before his contract is up, or any other number of things not related to winning, you might design a process more like option A.

[MikeInRoch]

It truly amazes me how much people think they know about what goes on behind the closed doors.

[DraftBoy]

I have trouble with that too. If it's true, it's stupid and makes it hard for other teams to deal with us. But most of what I read talked about the committee approach to the hire.




Is that what I said? Don't be an ass.

All three indicated the hire was a team effort. I haven't read anything saying that the decision was Whaley's.

How is that harder? It wasn't a big secret, most teams dealt with Whaley.

Yes but you said Marrone wasn't Whaley's choice. Nothing said that but you're jumping to a conclusion based on what? Nothing has indicated Whaley didn't want Marrone, or that wasn't intricately involved in the interview/hiring process. This is just blind speculation without something to go on.

Now if Wilson was more active I think you have a case but he's not and nobody left has the authority to just overrule everybody and make that kind of a decision.

[jimmifli]

Yes but you said Marrone wasn't Whaley's choice.

Hmmm. I don't remember saying that. Maybe you can post it?