Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
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.
|
Ah yes: the Rumsfeld defense.
Quote:
|
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
|
I'm going to go off of: whatever process there was led to a questionable hire given the more experienced, proven, and successful coaches available. My starting point - rightfully, in my view - is therefore that the unknowable should be cast negatively and under suspicion.
Results can overturn this, of course (and will, if positive).