And if you don't have it in writing, and stop searching, and that person backs out, you're screwed. Not to mention the ramifications of doing something behind everyone's back, undermining the current administration. It looks shady on all parts. Yes, it can be done, it's just the morally wrong thing to do. There are not any positives to it.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Yes, it can be done, it's just the morally wrong thing to do. There are not any positives to it.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

For the record I was trying to make a joke. I think being the head coach of the Packers would be a very attractive position for almost any prospective candidate.

I don't think the next GB coach has to worry about being fired in the middle of the season even if he only has 4 wins by week 13. It was a cumulative occurrence and I don't think Mike McCarthy was fired because of that.

The thing is most people realize and probably agree that it was time for the Packers to move on from McCarthy and they don't have a problem with the firing they just don't like the way it was done. Some thought they should have waited until the end of the season and let Mike decide how to approach it. Some don't even have a problem with the middle of the season thing they just thought they should have waited until Monday to do it.

I felt right from the start of the season that if they had a bad season he would be gone but I felt they would wait until the season was over. For many of the reasons Glazer pointed out I didn't see any benefit from doing it midseason. In fact I was so sure they would wait I didn't stop to think of the potential fallout if they didn't. Honestly, if I were McCarthy I think I'd prefer it this way. The uncertainty is gone now, he has an extra 4 weeks paid vacation and he can spend his time deciding on what he wants to do. He can start researching potential landing spots (watching game film of Baker Mayfield and developing a plan for him if the Browns should come calling for example) I don't think McCarthy lost anything in this except maybe a bit of pride. On the other hand potential employers may question his abilities because he was so bad the Packers didn't even let him finish out the year. However, I don't think that will be an issue. Mike McCarthy has his track record and it will stand on its own. The first 13 weeks are what GM's and owners are going to remember about McCarthy's 2018 season and not the fact that he didn't get to finish the last 4.

For the Packers I think it was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a bad game. Murphy probably had a threshold and it was reached and he pulled the trigger. What do they gain from it? Unless Joe Philbin is a serious candidate for the HC spot they gain very little. If he is they gain the advantage of a 4 game pre season so to speak. If he is just a placeholder they risked alienating legitimate potential candidates. Just like so many people are down on McDaniels for bailing on the Colts some candidates may be down on the Packers for bailing on McCarthy the way they did.

I do think Murphty is probably second guessing himself right now for the way he handled it because of the fallout but I think in the long run it won't make any difference.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

You're talking pre Dorsey, Highsmith and Wolf.

Right now I believe The Browns are more stable than The Packers.
I hope it doesn't take long for the board of directors to realise what a joke Murphy is making of this whole situation.
Browns
Young hotshot QB, better than average D.
Plenty of draft picks in the future, and plenty of money to spend.
Packers only have a better qb.

I'm afraid The Packers are going to become what The Browns were unless Murphy gets his head out of his ass or relinquishes power to The GM.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 

Not that Green Bay doesn't have a lot of problems right now, but the only reason I could see someone wanting to go to Cleveland over Green Bay is the "coach that finally turned the Browns around" factor.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

Honestly if I am a totally impartial candidate, with the changes made at the top in Cleveland recently I might just think its a better job.

I can think of two downsides to the Browns job. The owner seems to be a dipshit and you have to live in Cleveland. On the other hand I don't know if dealing with Mark Murphy as the top dog is any better than Haslam. And then you do have the "coach that finally turned the browns around" factor like you said. The equivalent in GB would be "the coach who kept the Packers from turning into the Browns" factor like Buckeye said.

I think the Packers have better draft picks this year (with the two firsts) but Cleveland has been loading up on the draft in recent years and has a lots of young guys from the previous couple of drafts. The Packers have some young talent from last year but from the years prior they have squat. The Browns have more cap space. Rodgers is a better QB historically but both QBs continue on the paths they seem to be on I'm not sure that will hold true for much longer. I haven't looked at a position by position comparison but it wouldn't surprise me if the Browns came out on top far more than you would think.

Oh, and the final thing that makes Cleveland the new Holy Grail of coaching jobs. They have Elliot Wolf. Packer fans the world over seem to think he is the second coming of ... well, the second coming of Ron Wolf at least.

Originally Posted by: sschind