What’s not clear to me (and we may never know) is how much of this was Jerry Jones deciding to not continue with McCarthy (and taking his own sweet time doing so), versus McCarthy wanting out.
Given recent buzz about Deion Sanders talking with Jones, it wouldn’t surprise me that Jones was initially planning to stick with McCarthy, until he discovered that he might be able to get Deion. Who knows?
But, yes, I agree, if I was a head coaching prospect, I’d be leery about going to the Cowboys, largely due to Jones.
The original announcement said that the sides could not agree on the term of the contract. To me, the only way that makes sense is that McCarthy wanted more years than the Cowboys, i.e. McCarthy was willing to commit but Jones was not. I can’t possibly imagine it being the other way around.
Wouldn’t surprise me. A few other possibilities which come to mind:
Jones wanted McCarthy to make changes to his staff (and maybe wanted specific coaches hired or fired), with which McCarthy disagreed. In particular, I suspect that Jones wanted Kellen Moore back.
Jones wanted to mandate specific changes to how McCarthy had been running the team, such as giving up offensive play-calling duties.
In other words, I suspect Jones was saying, “yes, I want you back, but with these changes,” and McCarthy said, “nope.”
A lot of this makes little sense from the Cowboys perspective. All of the proffered ideas are plausible, but the timing defies logic.
Why would the Cowboys:
Run McCarthy out there as a lame duck this year?
Wait to negotiate with McCarthy until AFTER his contract expired?
Refuse interview requests?
Announce the separation at almost the very last minute?
The best explanation for all of this to my mind is that McCarthy wants out. And has wanted out for a while now. If Jerry wanted to retain him, he’d have been offering him contracts in the previous 18 months. Even if those offers came with conditions, there would have been a steady back and forth. Jerry refused to allow him to interview because he wanted to figure out a way to entice McCarthy to sign with some godfather offer. Jerry waited until the last minute to release him because McCarthy dug in his heels and cut off negotiations (if he ever entertained them).
If this were a Jerry led decision, I have to think he’d have been way more proactive. He probably would have been canned on Black Monday. Seems more or less, that Jerry, in his infinite arrogance, believed that McCarthy would come hat in hand back to the Star in spite of all indications that he was out.
True but the writing was on the wall. They had McCarthy interviewed and hired literally within the day. He was in the building before the the divisional games were played.
Which, I guess, is yet another example of how toothless the Rooney Rule often is.
ETA: I guess they could rush a hire in the next 12 hours to match that timing again. Something tells me it won’t happen quite that fast this time.
I disagree. I think Jones legit has Sanders at the top of his coaching wish list. The problem is that he needs to figure out a way to move up in the draft to draft Shedeur as well. Jones still hasn’t figured out how to do that, so we have the mess that we currently have.
Bwuh? What does any of that do with Jones interviewing and hiring McCarthy within a day of firing Jason Garrett (and having a perfunctory interview with a minority candidate - Marvin Lewis )? I mean, that was a really blatant example of following the letter of the rule while skirting its intent entirely.
I don’t really want to turn this thread into a debate on the merits of the Rooney Rule, but the data is pretty solid on this. The Rooney Rule works. The diversity improvements since it was implemented have been pretty clear. The job isn’t done, and there are ebbs and flows each year, but it’s moving the needle.
Certainly, some teams will lock in on a single coach they want to hire. That will never change, and frankly I don’t think it should. Owners and GMs need to hire the right guy, and in the real world, there is sometimes a no-brainer hire. And sometimes there’s a personal relationship that trumps all. With the compressed nature of the hiring cycle, teams can’t afford to not target specific guys who are in extreme demand.
The point of the Rooney Rule wasn’t to force owners to hire people they didn’t want to hire; the point of the rule was to increase the exposure of minority candidates. Even if a team doesn’t plan to hire a guy, simply the act of interviewing him is good for the candidate. It raises his profile, it gives him a chance to build relationships within the ecosystem, it helps them practice their interview skills and learn what owners and GMs care about. Even when a team performs a perfunctory interview, it’s still having the result it’s intended to. And we know there have been examples where a team scheduled what started as a perfunctory interview only to be surprised when the guy brought the heat. It’s specifically intended as a foot in the door and nothing more. It’s not affirmative action.
I was reading more into what you said than what was there, thinking that you were implying that the current situation is similar. In other words that Deion Sanders is set to be a token Rooney rule interview for the current opening now that McCarthy is gone. I’m also assuming that for the kind of situation Dallas is in, Sanders would only agree to come on board as a package deal if the Cowboys draft his son. I’m hoping Jerry is able to pull this off, but I’m doubtful.
Jones is almost the poster child for why the rule exists, either way, no matter who he interviews this time.
Last time, he locked in on a candidate and had a token interview. After years of coaching the Bengals, Marvin Lewis didn’t need any “exposure”. Everybody knew Jones was skirting the line in both the letter and intent of the rule.
This time, he’s probably got his preferred candidates and is locking in on that group.
The point of the Rooney Rule wasn’t to increase exposure of minority candidates for its own sake but to try to get owners to actually consider their hiring practices - not to take the flavor of the month guy (who, historically, tended to be a white guy from a known coaching tree) but actually take the opportunity to consider folks they might not have even been aware of before, consider their organizational blind spots and maybe actually consider the character and qualities of the person they would be putting in charge of their team.
And that’s just not how Jerry Jones rolls. He goes with people he’s personally comfortable with (and more importantly who don’t/won’t question his decisions) and certainly doesn’t question or consider his own deficiencies or blind spots or the idea he even has such.
If that happens to include minority candidates, well, then he doesn’t have to find any token interview candidates for that go around.
Looks like Robert Kraft may be that way too. Not to say Mike Vrabel isn’t a great candidate - he’s among the safest bets and clearly has organizational ties, but if I owned a team and wanted to build to win not just now but in the future, I’d want to make sure I’m not just playing to my own biases. Interviewing a couple coaches with questionable records doesn’t help build “exposure”. It’s just a way to skirt both the letter and intent of the rule.
But then again, I’m not a billionaire, so I’m in the habit of considering my job performance.
He might. Sanders has been very good at working the transfer portal at Colorado, and attracting players, but his two sons (who played for him with the Buffaloes) are both eligible for the NFL Draft this spring.
If nothing else, Sanders is driven by ego, and coaching in the NFL, for the Cowboys, would be an even bigger stage for him.
)? I mean, that was a really blatant example of following the letter of the rule while skirting its intent entirely.