That makes some sense. Belichick’s always wanted to control the entire organization, and that was traditionally how things were done the last time he was up for a new job.
That’s just not how teams run these days. The current model is GM/HC duo, with the better organizations very clearly figuring out which has more or less authority and how cooperation will work.
It’s possible he’s willing to cede control over that part of the organization but it’s an open question as to whether he’s actually capable of that or if anybody would believe him if he said it.
That said, there’s probably more interest among other teams but he’s probably not interested in signing on with a team without a decent roster that are just a good coach away from contending. There aren’t many teams like that - Atlanta, the Chargers (until Harbaugh got that one), Dallas (until Jerry Jones confirmed he was keeping McCarthy) are the main ones.
None of the others really fit that profile very well. Washington is maybe the best fit out of the other options but they just hired a new GM who isn’t likely interested in getting into any office politics with a legendary HC. And likewise, Seattle and Tennessee aren’t great cultural fits or have other issues, but who knows?
Also, some teams are probably wanting the Lions to lose so they can really talk to Ben Johnson, which may be slowing things down as well. Washington is probably really seriously looking at that option, since they also looking at developing a new QB.
My recollection is that, even then (2000), it had already become unusual for a head coach to be given GM/player personnel power. When Mike Holmgren left the Packers for Seattle after the '98 season, a big reason for his departure was that he wanted that level of control, and the Packers weren’t willing to give it to him; the Seahawks made Holmgren GM and executive VP, as well as head coach.
Yeah, it was already largely going away but it was a model still used for several teams. In most of those cases, teams still had a separate GM but very clearly answering to the HC on personnel decisions. The Patriots didn’t even have a GM at all with Parcells or Belichick as de facto GMs most of the last 3 decades.
The most recent example is probably the Raiders with Gruden. Yes, he had a separate GM but it was pretty clear who was making the actual personnel calls. And they generally weren’t great decisions.
To your point, the first week of this past season featured 7 divisional matchups, although the opening game was the Chiefs hosting the Lions. So as @dalej42 said, it certainly could be the first SNF game next season.
Boomer Esiason’s been telling this to all the kids in the yard today, but I don’t know how much stock I put in that. Boomer’s been known to spread rumors.
I suspect he’s just saying that, hoping he’s right, then by declaring it early and first, it looks like he had some secret info or insight, when he was really just WAGing.
Pretty much everyone is saying this. Washington has scheduled a second interview with Johnson for next week, so it’s more than just random speculation.
I know there used to be a policy - I think it still exists - that the final week of the season has to be all division games. I think it has something to do with not wanting to give teams too much of an advantage concerning what, if anything, they have to do to get into the playoffs / win their division.
Mainly it’s about ratings. The biggest swings in the playoff standings occur due to division games, so by leaving those for the end of the season (most teams will have 2 or 3 of their 6 division games in the last 3 weeks of the season), they can maximize viewer interest in watching the games.
If you have those earlier, the playoff fields tend to get set earlier. So there are actually fewer questions about what teams need to do to make the playoffs and also consequently less interest in watching the games, especially if a team starts resting starters after it doesn’t have anything left to play for until the the tournament starts.
On the other hand, he only got an interview from one team so it appears for many teams to be based more on reputation and casual contact elsewhere than direct experience.
I don’t care if you have no intention of hiring him, you should still bring him in and at least pick his brain. That sort of pre-judgment is a good portion of why we have the Rooney Rule in the first place. Teams need to be kicked out of their herd mentality almost constantly
If he doesn’t get hired this season, he’s done. If no one wants him now, why would they want him for the 2025 season when he’ll be 73 and out of coaching for a year?
There are the ridiculous rumors swirling that Andy Reid is going to retire after this season and Belichick will replace him, but that’s just (somewhat irresponsible) “what if?” games from Adam Schefter.
It seems so weird to me that the best head coach of all time can’t get a job, but honestly everyone has an expiration date. So I guess it was inevitable.
Not interviewing because he has a reputation of being hard to work with is pre-judgment. As would be hig age as a consideration.
It’s entirely possible his record over the last few years is truly indicative of coaching ability, but considering the relative quality of the defenses and offenses he had (good in the first, bad in the second), it seems more likely to reflect on his personnel decisions
So, by all means, if that indicates a need to take personnel and front office power away, go ahead but at least feeling out how willing he’d be to do that seems warranted in the case of more than 1 team