The article criticizes the AZ Cardinals' hiring of Kingsbury (worth a read), but I'll quote the part that I think is pertinent to this thread below:
http://theundefeated.com/features/all-t ... troubling/
In another article by the same author, I can't help but picture Zimmer as exhibit A:The justifications for most head coach hires are as follows:
Retread: The candidate had some success doing this job elsewhere. With the proper support and the value of previous experience, he can reproduce and improve on that level of success.
Accomplished coordinator: This candidate was great at strategy, play design and playcalling for one side of the ball. While those skills are not directly applicable to the requirements of a head coach, being good on one side of the ball or the other is obviously valuable.
Championship proximity: This candidate was on the staff of a winner. And presumably he knows how to duplicate the culture and conditions that facilitate success.
Step up: This candidate has succeeded as a head coach in college or in a different pro football league, so he should be able to do it in the NFL.
Here's the link to this article: https://theundefeated.com/features/all- ... -nfl-team/Too many head coaches underestimate the importance of their new CEO duties and focus on the side of the ball that brought them success. The impact of that on a team is not unlike what happens in other organizations: There is no strategic cohesion, long-term awareness and a culture of apathy develops. In football, those issues manifest themselves in a few ways: poor clock management, indecisiveness at important moments, missed assignments by players, disgruntled players, harmful leaks to the media, etc.