AlexGreen#20 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: Pardon my ignorance here but genuinely I don't understand why would they hire a firm to really do the job they are meant to do? It's not like recruitment for top executive positions in the corporate world where the market is much broader and there is typically no one 'guys' job within a firm to headhunt talent, I would get it in that situation why you bring in a search firm. What's the harm? They're another source of information. They're background checks are going to be better than yours. They can ask uncomfortable questions that you don't necessarily want to do yourself. Basically all the reasons to prevent finding out a few days after you hired him that your head coach may or may not have sexually assaulted a woman, dragging your name down. Looking at you Detroit Lions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: Looking at you Detroit Lions. Good call, that was a completely avoidable embarrassment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfTheNorth Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Lions used an outside company to screen Patricia. "The Lions use an employment background screening company that conducts background checks on all hires, and that firm produced a report on Patricia during the hiring process that did not include any reference to his Texas arrest. It’s unclear what, if any, information the firm uncovered about the case while vetting Patricia, but when the Lions went back to examine why they only recently learned about the incident, they discovered that Massachusetts employment law prevents the screening company from providing, or them from using as part of their employment decision, information about an arrest, indictment or conviction more than seven years old." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 background checks ? Check with TMZ, or hire this guy proactively: The Fixer https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/when-the-dallas-cowboys-have-a-problem-this-is-the-man-who-makes-it-go-away/2016/09/30/a7bdeaf0-84e8-11e6-92c2-14b64f3d453f_story.html?utm_term=.d86fd8ff7100 “Whenever something is messed up and you need to go outside the lines a little bit,” former Kaufman County, Tex., district attorney Rick Harrison said, “he’s your guy.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Shanedorf said: "Packers president Mark Murphy has decided against using a search firm to assist with the hire, choosing instead to put the entire process in the hands of the top executives inside Lambeau Field, such as Murphy, GM Brian Gutekunst and vice president Russ Ball" Oh no. I can hear Ball now: "Yeah.....the guys got what it takes....sure looks that way, but I'm drawing the line on parking privileges and no "high end" parking spots and he gets meal per diem only three days a week" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 37 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: What's the harm? They're another source of information. They're background checks are going to be better than yours. They can ask uncomfortable questions that you don't necessarily want to do yourself. Basically all the reasons to prevent finding out a few days after you hired him that your head coach may or may not have sexually assaulted a woman, dragging your name down. Looking at you Detroit Lions. I just feel it creates confusion in the mind of the decision makers. It comes down to whose voice do you trust more the guys in your building or outside it? Are you backing your team to do its job or some an external company? It's the same whenever we hire in business consultants, their picture is always clouded as they don't live and breath the business and understand the internal working or the insights that we have as a result they come up with half arsed ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 28 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: I just feel it creates confusion in the mind of the decision makers. It comes down to whose voice do you trust more the guys in your building or outside it? Are you backing your team to do its job or some an external company? It's the same whenever we hire in business consultants, their picture is always clouded as they don't live and breath the business and understand the internal working or the insights that we have as a result they come up with half arsed ideas. There are NFL consultants that "live and breath" exactly this kind of recruitment, and are far from being generalists, which is why I'm in favor of bringing in outside expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jleisher Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 5 hours ago, Arthur Penske said: Maybe for a lateral position change to DC. This wouid be a HC gig. The way it sounded, it was the city not the job. That's the tone I remember them reporting it. You could very well be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Just now, jleisher said: The way it sounded, it was the city not the job. That's the tone I remember them reporting it. You could very well be right. I remember it .. if Vic was going to move he wanted to move back out west. He doesn't particularly like the weather in the midwest. I think for a head coaching job he'd move to Green Bay .. just a hunch. It was a lateral move at the time .. this would be much different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: I just feel it creates confusion in the mind of the decision makers. It comes down to whose voice do you trust more the guys in your building or outside it? Are you backing your team to do its job or some an external company? It's the same whenever we hire in business consultants, their picture is always clouded as they don't live and breath the business and understand the internal working or the insights that we have as a result they come up with half arsed ideas. Counterpoint, because they don't live and breathe the business, they don't have a clouded view of things. It's about gathering information, not letting them make the decisions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 I'm intrigued, cos I'm so ignorant about this. Do teams employ outside companies to look at draft prospects or free agents? For me as I stated before it just invalidates the work of what you have in house, maybe my view is too simplistic I'm not giving these search firms the credit they are due. Regardless, I do think the Pack are pretty clear who their top targets are. I mean why ditch a long term girlfriend in a most unceremonious way not to already have your head turned with your next fling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fussnputz Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 I've been part of searches that used these companies. You tell them what you're looking for and they go out and find candidates. They use their connections in the field to create a pool of candidates. You don't have to like the pool. You can tell them to go out and try again, maybe with more well defined search criteria. For example, maybe there are no college head coaches in the original pool and you wanted some. You can ask to have some added. The company will do it. They may develop a pool of 20-30 candidates. If you think someone is missing, you can still add that person (or two) to the pool. After all, it's your search! Once you have a pool, the company generally goes over all the candidates and then steps aside, and you have to rank the candidates by tiers. You usually only interview the top tier candidates. You're still expected to be thorough. Read up on, and ask around about the top tier people. If you find something questionable, the company tracks down the answer for you. In the end you make the decision who to hire from the top tier. If you don't like anyone, you start over. At any time you can abandon the process and hire someone who suddenly "pops up." That's the normal role of a search company. There's no risk and some advantage to using one. (I do not work for one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 4 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Stupid. Absolutely no harm in using a search firm. Just to do background checks it's worth the investment. I think a search firm is good to use but I Murphy and a multimillion dollar company like the Packers can very easily afford to contract a detailed background check from a company that specializes in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said: I've been part of searches that used these companies. You tell them what you're looking for and they go out and find candidates. They use their connections in the field to create a pool of candidates. You don't have to like the pool. You can tell them to go out and try again, maybe with more well defined search criteria. For example, maybe there are no college head coaches in the original pool and you wanted some. You can ask to have some added. The company will do it. They may develop a pool of 20-30 candidates. If you think someone is missing, you can still add that person (or two) to the pool. After all, it's your search! Once you have a pool, the company generally goes over all the candidates and then steps aside, and you have to rank the candidates by tiers. You usually only interview the top tier candidates. You're still expected to be thorough. Read up on, and ask around about the top tier people. If you find something questionable, the company tracks down the answer for you. In the end you make the decision who to hire from the top tier. If you don't like anyone, you start over. At any time you can abandon the process and hire someone who suddenly "pops up." That's the normal role of a search company. There's no risk and some advantage to using one. (I do not work for one.) I'm not disagreeing with you but ain't that stuff your asking a search firm to at the first instance pretty damm obvious, especially if your job is all about evaluation. The pool of potential candidates even if you include college ranks is so freaking narrow. I mean most of us on here are stating who those candidates should be. It's not like they'll identify some obsecure OL coach who is a perfect fit. If anything I thought a search firm would be used to validate a list and do some more digging around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said: I think a search firm is good to use but I Murphy and a multimillion dollar company like the Packers can very easily afford to contract a detailed background check from a company that specializes in that. Why not both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.