Blogskee, I don't know if this is the case either, but he did say "apparently".
Personally, I wouldnt compare Cortez to Will Farrell. Cotrez is much funnier!
Just repeating what has been stated by another poster earlier on this board. I cannot verify the statement so I qualified it with the word "apparently". It does seem likely however, that someone who has been an assistant coach and coordinator for as many years as George Cortez would/should have been considered for at least one or two head coaching jobs along the way. Whether or not he actually interviewed for an HC job is not the point. He could have been found lacking in some area(s) and been passed over for the job before even reaching the interviewing stage.
ANYONE hired as a HC is hired for their potential! How else does anyone become a head coach in the first place???? And even when they have been successful as a HC with one team it does not mean they can do the same thing with another. So any HC hiring involves looking at potential. In that respect it's always somewhat of a gamble.
So which "proven, experienced, championship-winning head coach" should we have hired? We have gone that route before ....remember Charlie Taafe?
In our case, where Cortez has never been been a HC, it was obvious he was hired for his potential based on his experience as a co-ordinator.
Having said that though......I have posted elsewhere on this forum that that I think it was too much of a gamble giving Cortez such a big say in football operations. We have come close to betting the farm for four years so it's good to see some signs of potential in his first year.
Too early for final judgements.
He's got a 5 year deal ranging from 450,000 to 500,000 per year. So NO. He would not have left the NFL, if he was not sure. Your stuck with him
I think you've missed the point here. Potential is fine, but you don't pay Marc Trestman-type money and commit yourself to that expense for four years to someone who is totally unproven as a head coach at ANY LEVEL. The risks to the organization, financial and otherwise, are simply too great if it doesn't work out and we've seen numerous instances where successful coordinators have quickly failed as head coaches for various reasons.
If you hire someone who has never been a head coach but you think he has potential, you pay him accordingly. If he tries to hold you to ransom for excessive money, you decline and move on. It's no different in any business IMO. You do not "bet the farm" and pay him like he's a successful, Grey Cup-winning head coach before he's accomplished anything in the position.
seymour: Whatever...but give us a name. Who would have met your criteria at the time Cortez was recruited?
We are stuck with Cortez for good or ill. The Caretaker was OK with the salary so all we can do is hope he is up to the job.
Don't ask me. I wasn't involved in the search for a new head coach. I don't know who was under consideration, who was available, who was passed over or who was still in the running at the end.
Yes, and committing four years and huge money to a totally unproven head coach as if he were an experienced, proven Grey Cup winner and then "hoping for the best" is a ridiculous strategy IMO.