Well, it's also one of those things, where if you purposely interview someone you know isn't qualified or good, you have an idea of how an under qualified / overwhelmed candidate will respond. It's actually fairly brilliant, when you hear something bad, it helps you realize when you hear something way better.S197 wrote:It seems like the top candidates are all strong defensive guys, maybe we need to examine potential OC's, which will be key for these guys to succeed. I'm shocked the Vikings are talking to Bevell, I mean he was Musgrave 1.0. Unimaginative play calling, run-run-pass-punt. I bet I can go back to some old Bevell quotes and post them here and no one would be able to tell if the person is talking about Musgrave or Bevell.
He's done well in Seattle so maybe it was a case of being handcuffed by Chili but the risk is too high IMO, lets get some new blood in here.
I'm hoping Spielman is talking to him as part of his extensive search. Basically reaching out to multiple contacts just to build a network as was suggested in a recent article.
If Bevell comes in and says his things, then candidate #2 comes in and it sounds similar to Bevell, but then candidate #3 comes in and it sounds way better than both of them but then candidate #4 sounds even better than #3, you can start to build a base around the sample size. Now you have an idea that #4 is a pretty high quality candidate, #3 isn't bad, but Bevell and #2 are the floor. Now to go further, let's say you didn't take the time to interview the weaker candidates Bevell and #2. You'd know 3 is okay, and 4 is a little better, but you don't really know where they stand in the grand scheme of things.
If you interview Childress and no one else, it's quite possible the next few guys you interview could have made him look like the joke he was!
