Scott Linehan possibly to the Raiders?!?! That, my friends, is some [site decorum] [site decorum]!

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 8:31 PM PST in San Francisco 49ers News

Jerry McDonald from Inside the Bay Area is reporting that Scott Linehan may be coming out to the Bay Area for an interview with the Oakland Raiders for their vacant offensive coordinator position.

“There’s a strong possibility that we’re going to have him in for an interview soon - like within the next few days,” [Raiders] spokesman John Herrera said.

First off, this is just an IF right now. However, clearly he's spoken with the Raiders in some capacity if they're already talking about a full-on interview in Oakland. I know there are folks out there who say move on and ignore it. Others will say they never wanted Linehan in the first place so no loss. While both of these are legitimate arguments, I'm in an annoyed mood by all this and feel venting is in order.

When Linehan turned down the 49ers position, his public claim was personal reasons, and his subsequent comments seemed to indicate the primary issue was moving his family around at this point in their life. If that was the case, that's a perfectly reasonable excuse.

Rumors have circulated since then that the 49ers QB situation was not too his liking. Barrows pointed out how that doesn't make a whole lot of sense given his affinity for Alex Smith and work with Shaun Hill in the past. If Barrows is on point, that would certainly lead to even further confusion as to his actual reasons.

In retrospect, coming out for 2 interviews and not making a decision right after the offer definitely should have raised red flags. I won't put words in his mouth because I honestly don't know what his thought process has really been through this whole thing. I do think "personal reasons" was a flat-out lie. For one reason or another, he decided he didn't want the job and apparently didn't want to hurt Mike Singletary's feelings. Given what we know about Singletary I don't think hurt feelings will ever be an issue.

Obviously Scott Linehan is not in the 49ers future and the best thing might be to move past it. Personally, I think venting can be a little healthy and this has developed into just that kind of situation.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

site decorum is right

someone needs to punch this guy in the face.

Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis

by wjackalope on Jan 22, 2009 8:36 PM PST reply actions

Why?...

Because he didn’t give an honest reason why he didn’t want to coach in SF? Would you have rather he did?

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions

location

The problem is that it’s the Raiders, and not b/c of the Oakland/SF rivalry. It’s because they’re 7 miles away. Come up with a better excuse or something. Don’t tell me about the issues of uprooting your family and then potentially interview for a job 7 miles from San Francisco. That’s just weak.

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 8:48 PM PST up reply actions

Well, it's obvious his reason was bogus...

But do you really want to know his real reason why? I mean, to consider coaching for a dysfunctional franchise in the Raiders over the 49ers, after being a former Head coach in another trainwreck in STL…

Maybe, just maybe, he held back his real reasons for the sake of respect to the 49ers.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 8:59 PM PST up reply actions

incompetence

Again, my problem is with the distance thing. It just boggles my mind. If he had sat around for a year, or done whatever else for a year and THEN came to the Raiders it probably wouldn’t bug me. It’s just he might possibly be choosing the one franchise that would make him blatantly look like a hypocrite, liar, etc.

Like I said in the post, I realize plenty of people will disagree with me and think we should just move on, but it’s something that just strikes a nerve.

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions

Linehan doesn't bother me...

I’m glad he didn’t get hired, because he was a desperate move like the previous 3 before him. Besides, job interviews, in a market that’s ripe for OC’s can be a two way street. Maybe he didn’t like what he saw in SF, and again, out of respect, gave his bogus reason.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions

all he had to do

was say “I didn’t think that the 49ers were the right fit for me.”

Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis

by wjackalope on Jan 22, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

exactly

Simply by pulling on both ends, Patrick Willis can stretch diamonds back into coal

by 49erLou on Jan 22, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions

And that would have made you feel better?

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions

it's called professionalism

I know he doesn’t care what you or I think, but I don’t see how lying is respectful when a situation like this comes up. It’s not like we’re a Super Bowl winning franchise at the moment that intimidates folks. Be a man about it.

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

You ever stop to think...

That there is some truth to his wife being part of his decision making process? Maybe the $$$ wasn’t good enough for them to move here. Does anybody think about that?

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions

Reasons

Again, he’s still flat-out lying. He released a statement about this:

“It was 100 percent not economic. They were great. Everything was done with the utmost class. It was more of a personal decision I had come to.”

If it was really a money issue, don’t say it’s not a money issue. Players say it’s not about the money even though it usually is, but they at least come up with reasonable if lame excuses that aren’t quite as hypocritical. How hard is it to say the fit isn’t right? One quick sentence and nobody would think otherwise about it.

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions

It obviously isn't hurting his options now, is it?...

Heck, I’ve just sat through years of lies from Nolan and the Yorks. Linehan doesn’t nearly piss me off as much as that.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions

Raiders

These are the Raiders we’re talking about.

Whatever other organizations want to think of him so be it. I’m just expressing my thoughts on him.

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

And if he turned them down...

and lied about it, we’d all be laughing.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions

true

But that comes with the territory of being a fan of the spurned team. I already know Raiders fans find it amusing (I have a Facebook friend who sent me a snide message). It’s the joy/pain of sports that two people can view a situation so completely different.

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 9:59 PM PST up reply actions

I'm just tired of this OC debacle...

That has plagued this team for years. It was different when the 49ers had a system with the talent in place that could run it. The 49ers have abandoned everything that has worked for them in the past, that they even lost one of the Hallmark’s of the team since the “Alley Oop” days, which was offense. What’s even more ironic is that one of the reasons Jags was fired at BC was the issue of “commitment”, and he is an OC candidate.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions

As a Life Long Raiders Fan

I completely agree with the statement It’s the joy/pain of sports that two people can view a situation so completely different. The losing does not bother me nearly as much as the drama and repeat mistakes like having an owner hire staff instead of a coach or GM with an overall game plan. We all know the Raiders are a mess and probably will continue to be until Davis is out of the picture.

That being said as much as I hate to give props SF they seem to be on the up and Al Davis has to be one of the 2 (being nice here he’s probably #1) worst GM’s to work for as a coach? Why the hell would you turn down the 49ers gig for the current Raiders situation. Obviously working for the 9ers is an assault on ones manhood but besides that it seems like a sweeter gig.

"You Went Full Retard, Man - Never Go Full Retard." --Kirk Lazarus

by Ovale Fan on Jan 23, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions

His real reason...

might be that the 49ers are completely behind Mike Singletary. Firing Mike would not be an option, at least in the next 2 years (if the team continues to lose). If that is so, Linehan won’t be named interim or permanent HC.

"The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing"

by Jeff_Fuller_49 on Jan 23, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

Maybe his wife had a map

“Scott, dear, Oakland is not as far west as San Francisco so it won’t as much of a move.”

by Bob In Beaverton on Jan 23, 2009 6:28 AM PST up reply actions

It would have made Linehan look like a lot less of a douchebag.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter, but it’s a really unprofessional thing to do.

by mikev on Jan 22, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

my personal guess

is that Singletary wanted a two year commitment, minimum, and Linehan wasn’t prepared to make that commitment.

They're called RUNS for a reason.

by connie mack on Jan 22, 2009 9:31 PM PST reply actions

Sounds right.

But, of course, as far as one can trust Linehan you might not have been able to get a two-week commitment from him.

I do hope that Singletary and McCloughan have someone very close to signing. I want this over yesterday. Then I can sit back and watch Linehan’s career run aground in Oakland.

by Bob In Beaverton on Jan 22, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions

Which makes sense.

Well, we're waiting....

by drummer on Jan 22, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions

you're probably right...

…it’s the only reasonable explanation for some unreasonable behavior on linehan’s part. however, if i remember right, he said he didn’t want to relocate his family, period. he didn’t add any qualifiers like, “relocate outside 1000 miles,” or “relocate for longer than 1 year,” etc. he just said flat out that he didn’t want to take the job because he didn’t want to relocate. nothing about “length of commitment” has come up in any of the reporting as far as i know. i could be (read “am probably”) wrong.

by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Jan 22, 2009 9:58 PM PST up reply actions

I'm disappointed that we didn't get Linehan...

I was one of the guys who were excited about the possibility of him becoming the guy to hold down our OC spot for the next few years.

However, I don’t hold it against him for turning the job down. Yeah, the fact that he would fail to mention that he was even on the fence about it despite TWO interviews is a bit shady, but eh. To be honest, the supposed leak about his reluctance to take on our QB situation really makes the whole thing make sense, to me.

So he’s known Alex Smith since he was a kid. So what? Would you turn down other, possibly better, jobs for the opportunity to coach your best friend’s nephew…if you knew the kid sucked?

So he’s coached Shaun Hill before. So what? That doesn’t mean he’s high on the guy. Maybe Linehan was part of the reason Hill never made it higher than 3rd on the depth chart in Minnesota.

People don’t think of these things. It’s clear (at least to me) that our QB of the future is not currently on our roster. From the sound of things, Linehan was excited about the possibility of drafting a fresh face and molding him to his liking…but Scot and Sing don’t seem very interested in spending a high draft choice on that position. Why is it such an insane concept to so many people that this could, indeed, be a dealbreaker?

by shlecko on Jan 22, 2009 11:10 PM PST reply actions

reasons

The problem that all this brings up is what the actual reason was. Some rumors are that Singletary wanted to lock him down for at least 2 years, but he wanted more flexibility. If he wanted to groom his own QB, it’s hard to say whether he could do that in 1 year. I realize the two reasons aren’t exactly in contradiction to each other, but they just add to the overall shady-ness.

by David Fucillo on Jan 22, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions

glad we didn't hire him

In hindsight (which is always 20/20) I think Linahan has to many personal issues with the qbs. He is good friends with Alex Smith, and he has trained Shaun HIll. I wonder if the reason he turned down the job is because he feared he might have to tell a friend that he isn’t good enough to start. In either case when I knew about his Hill connection I was stoked about his hiring, but once he said no and I heard about the Smith connection I am glad we didn’t hire him because that is to much potential drama for us.

by Gailikk on Jan 23, 2009 6:05 AM PST reply actions

From what I hear

he may not have friends.

by Bob In Beaverton on Jan 23, 2009 6:30 AM PST up reply actions

A testament to his intelligence

If Linehan turned us down, a franchise obviously on the up from where it has been the past 5 years, to go to the Raiders, a franchise that is unanimously one of the most [site decorum]ed up franchises in the league with an owner that is 2 years beyond senility, then maybe Linehan isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I liked him, and thought it would be interesting to see him work with our staff, but now that he’s done this, he’s somewhere between the Cardinals fans who burned McNabb’s lawn and a toaster on the intelligence list.

Good Riddance.

Blind devotion.

by ProfessorBigelow on Jan 23, 2009 8:30 AM PST reply actions