Schefter: Redskins Asked For But Denied Permission To Interview Jim Schwartz [Archive] - BillsZone.com

Typ0

01-03-2015, 05:09 PM

Good. Hopefully it doesn't piss Schwartz off.

It also tells us the next HC is going to have to be fine with the DC already in place.

My hope is they discussed it with him prior to sending the refusal. We have seen a lot of poor communication from the Bills organization under Wilson and this needs to change. Being a professional is about professionalism.

cookie G

01-03-2015, 05:10 PM

Hate it.

you knew it was coming.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 05:10 PM

you knew it was coming.

I did, doesn't make me like it any more.

Demon

01-03-2015, 05:15 PM

Good. Hopefully it doesn't piss Schwartz off.

It also tells us the next HC is going to have to be fine with the DC already in place.

Unless the head coach decides to fire Schwartz. For example, if the Bills hired Quinn.

tomz

01-03-2015, 05:16 PM

Hate it.
Sorry. But...

Why do you hate it? It means the bills intend to keep Schwartz as dc.

cookie G

01-03-2015, 05:17 PM

eh...the Bills promise to carry him off the field after every victory, we'll be fine.

Maybe build him one of those ancient Egyptian litters.

TacklingDummy

01-03-2015, 05:18 PM

Schwartz is going to be the next head coach of the Bills, book it.

Albany,n.y.

01-03-2015, 05:18 PM

At this point it doesn't mean he's staying. All it says is at this point the Bills aren't ready to release him from his contract. If the Bills hire a HC who doesn't want Schwartz, he'll be gone. If the new guy wants Schwartz, he'll stay. Too early to draw any conclusions. At least (I hope) we don't have to worry that the Bills will contact Haslett & hire him as head coach like they did with 2 other coordinators who got fired (Gailey & Jauron) from their last gigs and got a promotion in Buffalo to head coach.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 05:19 PM

Sorry. But...

Why do you hate it? It means the bills intend to keep Schwartz as dc.

I hate the idea that we are not allowing a coach (regardless of stature) to interview for another job they may want after we fired the HC and intend to bring in a new regime. You're basically leaving them in purgatory with no resolution currently in sight.

Furthermore it does not mean they intend to keep Schwartz, all it means is that they want that option. If the new HC wants a different DC they'll release Schwartz and imo that's a ****ty way to operate.

Hence why I hate it. If he wants to go to Washington and be their DC while we decide and not wait for us then let him go. Same goes for any of our current assistants.

Demon

01-03-2015, 05:20 PM

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 05:23 PM

He's under contract with the Buffalo Bills...

Yeah...is that supposed to mean something suddenly? Him being under contract doesn't prevent him from being let go in a couple of weeks does it? Coaches are allowed to interview for other jobs all the time when under contract. I don't believe denying that right, especially in a time of change, is professional or the way I'd want business to be conducted.

See Dirk Koetter and the Bucs interview that is now scheduled. That's an inter-division interview for the same position.

Skooby

01-03-2015, 05:23 PM

eh...the Bills promise to carry him off the field after every victory, we'll be fine.

Maybe build him one of those ancient Egyptian litters.

All the while playing David Bowie's "fame" song, that was the clincher.

DynaPaul

01-03-2015, 05:28 PM

It was a lateral move. Why on earth would the Bills approve that? As of today he's still our DC.

Typ0

01-03-2015, 05:35 PM

I hate the idea that we are not allowing a coach (regardless of stature) to interview for another job they may want after we fired the HC and intend to bring in a new regime. You're basically leaving them in purgatory with no resolution currently in sight.

Furthermore it does not mean they intend to keep Schwartz, all it means is that they want that option. If the new HC wants a different DC they'll release Schwartz and imo that's a ****ty way to operate.

Hence why I hate it. If he wants to go to Washington and be their DC while we decide and not wait for us then let him go. Same goes for any of our current assistants.

OR....he was asked by the Pegula's and expressed interest in remaining here....so the team sent the no no so coach Swartz wasn't declining an interview. That door remains open. You most likely are pissing on the win win solution. Schwartz is ready to go with a top 5 defense here and will interview for the H.C. job. I kinda doubt the guy is worried about not working next year at this point...and if he gets fired he gets the $$$ right?

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 05:39 PM

OR....he was asked by the Pegula's and expressed interest in remaining here....so the team sent the no no so coach Swartz wasn't declining an interview. That door remains open. You most likely are pissing on the win win solution. Schwartz is ready to go with a top 5 defense here and will interview for the H.C. job. I kinda doubt the guy is worried about not working next year at this point...and if he gets fired he gets the $$$ right?

Do you really think any team sends in a formal request for an interview without knowing that the candidate is interested in talking to them? Can you even name one time that a coach refused an interview after the request was made? I can't think of one.

Demon

01-03-2015, 05:41 PM

Yeah...is that supposed to mean something suddenly? Him being under contract doesn't prevent him from being let go in a couple of weeks does it? Coaches are allowed to interview for other jobs all the time when under contract. I don't believe denying that right, especially in a time of change, is professional or the way I'd want business to be conducted.

See Dirk Koetter and the Bucs interview that is now scheduled. That's an inter-division interview for the same position.

Most assistant coaches in the league are hired under 2-year deals, so i assume he has 1-year left. If he's fired next week, he will still collect the 1-year salary he is owned, and would still be able to find another job, either as DC or on TV. Not a bad gig.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 05:45 PM

Most assistant coaches in the league are hired under 2-year deals, so i assume he has 1-year left. If he's fired next week, he will still collect the 1-year salary he is owned, and would still be able to find another job, either as DC or on TV. Not a bad gig.

Ok, I'm not sure how any of that has anything to do with what I said. If the guy wants to go, let him go. It's that simple, I don't support keeping a coach here in a time of change when they have interest elsewhere simply because we want the option of keeping him around. Don't like that business practice.

Typ0

01-03-2015, 05:45 PM

Do you really think any team sends in a formal request for an interview without knowing that the candidate is interested in talking to them? Can you even name one time that a coach refused an interview after the request was made? I can't think of one.

I'd like to think our people had a sit down or conference call and decided this was the route they were going to take...all of them including Schwartz. At minimum you talk to the guy and explain your position and come to terms about what's happening so you can move forward together. If not, then Ralph Wilson is still running the team and we are doomed.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 05:47 PM

I'd like to think our people had a sit down or conference call and decided this was the route they were going to take...all of them including Schwartz. At minimum you talk to the guy and explain your position and come to terms about what's happening so you can move forward together. If not, then Ralph Wilson is still running the team and we are doomed.

I'm not willing to make that assumption.

Typ0

01-03-2015, 05:50 PM

I'm not willing to make that assumption.

I am ... because option two is a very bad option! We need to have hope things are changing for the better at this point.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 05:51 PM

I am ... because option two is a very bad option! We need to have hope things are changing for the better at this point.

For the organizations sake I certainly hope so.

Typ0

01-03-2015, 05:58 PM

For the organizations sake I certainly hope so.

yes...there is a lot of momentum but it's delicate. On the other hand if Brandon screwed this up maybe he's the fall guy too.

Mace

01-03-2015, 06:07 PM

All the while playing David Bowie's "fame" song, that was the clincher.

Gave me a good laugh, Baldwin, er MurrayDowntown.

ParanoidAndroid

01-03-2015, 06:39 PM

Denying the request is basically saying that Schwartz is not expendable. Why would he be angry about that? The Pegulas and Whaley will first try to find a suitable candidate willing to work with Schwartz. They'll take a top down approach and what we hope for is that they won't have to go too far down the list. Shannahan has too big an ego to not hire his own DC, I would bet. He'll go to SF.

YardRat

01-03-2015, 07:03 PM

I hate the idea that we are not allowing a coach (regardless of stature) to interview for another job they may want after we fired the HC and intend to bring in a new regime. You're basically leaving them in purgatory with no resolution currently in sight.

Furthermore it does not mean they intend to keep Schwartz, all it means is that they want that option. If the new HC wants a different DC they'll release Schwartz and imo that's a ****ty way to operate.

Hence why I hate it. If he wants to go to Washington and be their DC while we decide and not wait for us then let him go. Same goes for any of our current assistants.

You're assuming a bunch here DB...the FO hasn't had a conversation with Schwartz, he might want to make a lateral move, etc.

YardRat

01-03-2015, 07:07 PM

Raptor

01-03-2015, 07:11 PM

I hate the idea that we are not allowing a coach (regardless of stature) to interview for another job they may want after we fired the HC and intend to bring in a new regime. You're basically leaving them in purgatory with no resolution currently in sight.

Furthermore it does not mean they intend to keep Schwartz, all it means is that they want that option. If the new HC wants a different DC they'll release Schwartz and imo that's a ****ty way to operate.

Hence why I hate it. If he wants to go to Washington and be their DC while we decide and not wait for us then let him go. Same goes for any of our current assistants.

He signed the deal, he knew the deal when he did, they didn't ask him to be a HC....If Schwartz wanted more freedom than he should have pushed for a one year deal

Novacane

01-03-2015, 07:24 PM

I bet they'd give Hackett permission is anyone wanted to interview him.

justasportsfan

01-03-2015, 07:25 PM

after we fired the HC and intend to bring in a new regime. .

We didn't fire the HC and there no clear intention of bringing in new regime until the bills have interviewed everyon e including Schwartz.

YardRat

01-03-2015, 07:29 PM

I bet they'd give Hackett permission is anyone wanted to interview him.

Burger King considered asking, but backed out after reviewing the game film.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 07:31 PM

You're assuming a bunch here DB...the FO hasn't had a conversation with Schwartz, he might want to make a lateral move, etc.

If he doesn't want to make the move then he simply says no, right?

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 07:32 PM

So you support tampering?

Oh get out of here with that crap. You know how this works. The team will contact the agent, and the agent will tell his client, the client tells the agent if he has interest and the agent communicates with the team. Can we do without the hyperbole and at least base the discussion in reality?

YardRat

01-03-2015, 07:35 PM

If he doesn't want to make the move then he simply says no, right?

According to your assumption, he's already said yes to being interested.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 07:36 PM

According to your assumption, he's already said yes to being interested.

Being interested in talking and taking an offer are two entirely different things. Now you're making assumptions.

YardRat

01-03-2015, 07:45 PM

Oh get out of here with that crap. You know how this works. The team will contact the agent, and the agent will tell his client, the client tells the agent if he has interest and the agent communicates with the team. Can we do without the hyperbole and at least base the discussion in reality?

Reality is "Out of our anti-tampering policy, the term tampering as used within the NFL refers to any interference by a member club with the employer/employee relationship of another club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce the person to seek employment with that club or with the NFL." Contacting the agent is covered.

Don't throw 'reality' and 'hyperbole' at me when you are the one making huge assumptions.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 07:45 PM

Reality is "Out of our anti-tampering policy, the term tampering as used within the NFL refers to any interference by a member club with the employer/employee relationship of another club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce the person to seek employment with that club or with the NFL." Contacting the agent is covered.

Don't throw 'reality' and 'hyperbole' at me when you are the one making huge assumptions.

Still crap. You know that and I know that.

YardRat

01-03-2015, 08:10 PM

Still crap. You know that and I know that.

No, it isn't. It's already been reported (and granted maybe a change of tune even more recently) that Schwartz told the organization he wasn't interested in a HC gig yet, do you have anything that indicates the conversation also didn't include the same reluctance to make a lateral move elsewhere? Regardless of how the HC thingie ends up spinning, it's obvious that the two sides have talked, do you really think the topic of conversation also didn't touch on possible offers from elsewhere?

FYI, I know it's not a HC or OC gig, but Baltimore has granted teams permission to interview DeCosta for GM positions more than once and DeCosta has turned down the opportunity to interview.

CommissarSpartacus

01-03-2015, 08:53 PM

No, it isn't. It's already been reported (and granted maybe a change of tune even more recently) that Schwartz told the organization he wasn't interested in a HC gig yet...

I think Schwart2 didn't say he wasn't interested in a HC gig, I bet he said that he's happy to be under contract as the Bills DC and that's his only concern.

I'm sure that if the Pegulas and Whaley came to him and told him they wanted him to take over the team, he'd be interested.

Schwart2 is keeping his mouth shut. It's the smart thing to do.

YardRat

01-03-2015, 08:54 PM

That's certainly a possibility.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 09:06 PM

No, it isn't. It's already been reported (and granted maybe a change of tune even more recently) that Schwartz told the organization he wasn't interested in a HC gig yet, do you have anything that indicates the conversation also didn't include the same reluctance to make a lateral move elsewhere? Regardless of how the HC thingie ends up spinning, it's obvious that the two sides have talked, do you really think the topic of conversation also didn't touch on possible offers from elsewhere?

FYI, I know it's not a HC or OC gig, but Baltimore has granted teams permission to interview DeCosta for GM positions more than once and DeCosta has turned down the opportunity to interview.

You know I've heard a number of people say that, but I'm yet to actually see those reports. Also if those reports are true why is he scheduled to interview for the job? Something there doesn't add up. Do you anything that indicates it did include a reluctance to move laterally?

I don't know honestly, but it sounds like we're on opposite sides of the same assumption based on the way your breaking it down.

Good point on DeCosta.

CommissarSpartacus

01-03-2015, 09:11 PM

Schwart2 had the balls to call out Harbaugh for being a douchebag...

http://www.sportsgirlkat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/harbaugh5.jpg

YardRat

01-03-2015, 09:19 PM

You know I've heard a number of people say that, but I'm yet to actually see those reports. Also if those reports are true why is he scheduled to interview for the job? Something there doesn't add up.

I agree, that's why I tried to be careful with the wording of my response.

Do you anything that indicates it did include a reluctance to move laterally?

No, but I'm not assuming either way, and passing judgement on the team's response to the request.

I don't know honestly, but it sounds like we're on opposite sides of the same assumption based on the way your breaking it down.

I'm not assuming anything and trying to remain open to all possibilities, because the truth is (and we both know this) nobody really has a clue what's really going on and there is so much **** thrown at the wall during a process like this it's difficult to judge how valid any of the comments are.

If it turns out Schwartz wants to bail also and is being prohibited by the team than yeah, I can agree that's shoddy business practice on the Bills part, but I'm not going to voice that condemnation until it's confirmed. For all we know, the two have already discussed the possibilities and Schwartz is just fine not interviewing elsewhere.

One thing I did learn while researching that I didn't know, but probably should have, is that once a team gives permission to interview to one team they are no longer able to deny that same permission to any other team in the league.

DraftBoy

01-03-2015, 09:22 PM

I agree, that's why I tried to be careful with the wording of my response.

No, but I'm not assuming either way, and passing judgement on the team's response to the request.

I'm not assuming anything and trying to remain open to all possibilities, because the truth is (and we both know this) nobody really has a clue what's really going on and there is so much **** thrown at the wall during a process like this it's difficult to judge how valid any of the comments are.

If it turns out Schwartz wants to bail also and is being prohibited by the team than yeah, I can agree that's shoddy business practice on the Bills part, but I'm not going to voice that condemnation until it's confirmed. For all we know, the two have already discussed the possibilities and Schwartz is just fine not interviewing elsewhere.

One thing I did learn while researching that I didn't know, but probably should have, is that once a team gives permission to interview to one team they are no longer able to deny that same permission to any other team in the league.

Fair enough.

Yea I read about that during the Marrone search two years ago. It's something I didn't previously know.

HAMMER

01-03-2015, 09:26 PM

I hate the idea that we are not allowing a coach (regardless of stature) to interview for another job they may want after we fired the HC and intend to bring in a new regime. You're basically leaving them in purgatory with no resolution currently in sight.

Furthermore it does not mean they intend to keep Schwartz, all it means is that they want that option. If the new HC wants a different DC they'll release Schwartz and imo that's a ****ty way to operate.

Hence why I hate it. If he wants to go to Washington and be their DC while we decide and not wait for us then let him go. Same goes for any of our current assistants.

Gimme a break, you are such a bleeding heart liberal. The guy signed a contract, has a year left on said contract, and it is obvious Buffalo wants him. Who cares what happens when a new HC comes in. If let go, which I HIGHLY doubt regardless of who is brought in, Schwartz will get paid, and won't have any problem finding a job next year if necessary. You don't just give away a valuable, well paid commodity. He's not a slave.

better days

01-04-2015, 11:44 AM

I hate the idea that we are not allowing a coach (regardless of stature) to interview for another job they may want after we fired the HC and intend to bring in a new regime. You're basically leaving them in purgatory with no resolution currently in sight.

Furthermore it does not mean they intend to keep Schwartz, all it means is that they want that option. If the new HC wants a different DC they'll release Schwartz and imo that's a ****ty way to operate.

Hence why I hate it. If he wants to go to Washington and be their DC while we decide and not wait for us then let him go. Same goes for any of our current assistants.

Well, as I said before the Falcons are doing the same thing with their OC.

It is STUPID to let a Coach leave for a lateral position unless you no longer want him.

better days

01-04-2015, 11:57 AM

Yeah...is that supposed to mean something suddenly? Him being under contract doesn't prevent him from being let go in a couple of weeks does it? Coaches are allowed to interview for other jobs all the time when under contract. I don't believe denying that right, especially in a time of change, is professional or the way I'd want business to be conducted.

See Dirk Koetter and the Bucs interview that is now scheduled. That's an inter-division interview for the same position.

I think this is all BS.

The reports I heard out of Tampa were they WANTED to interview Koetter but were DENIED by the Falcons.

I did not get any notification that the Bucs had an interview scheduled with Koetter which I would have gotten if it were actually scheduled.

Also, the Redskins were DENIED permission to interview the 49ers DC.