Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy
Eh? Questioning the process would extend to whatever led to Treliving’s belief that no additional interviews were required, and to land on Peters as the answer long before asking of other coaches what their answers would be to the question of “What would you do with this group?”
I really don’t get what you’re saying here... there should be no debate about not following a typical head coach hiring process?
|
I think the message here is twofold:
1) Hiring a NHL coach is not like hiring personnel for practically any position any one of us is likely familiar with. Given the highly narrow specialization and the infinitesimally small pool of candidates the hiring process is almost certainly going to appear different from the outside. Also, I think it is pretty clear that not every situation will follow the same processes. Bill Peters was hired in a time-crunch, which helps to explain a lot about what happened this summer.
2) Without knowing any specifics about the hiring process it is probably not advisable to form very strong opinions about it. In this case it is a fact that there is more we don't know about the process behind Bill Peters's hire than what we know. Under these conditions it is understandable for people to be curious or puzzled, or to wonder about matters of thoroughness. However, a number of the assertions about what Treliving should have done; what he did or did not do are unjustifiably strong in the face of what has been publicly disclosed.
Results will be the arbiter on the quality of Bill Peters's hire, but we won't know those for some time yet.