The Cleveland Browns set out to look modern, methodical, and “data-driven.” Instead, they turned a head coaching search into a case study in how to overcomplicate a human decision.
Reports indicate the Browns required coaching candidates to complete detailed questionnaires, write a multi-part essay, take a personality test, and finish additional homework. This wasn’t for a front office analyst or an intern role. This was for one of the 32 head coaching jobs in the NFL. The result was predictable: strong, in-demand candidates walked away.
Mike McDaniel and Jesse Minter both withdrew from consideration. Not because they weren’t qualified, but because they didn’t need to jump through hoops. Top coaching candidates have leverage. When a process feels bloated, impersonal, or dismissive of their time, they move on.
That’s the central failure of this search. Hiring a head coach is about leadership, trust, and shared vision. Those traits don’t show up in essays and personality profiles. They come out in conversations, football philosophy, and real decision-making. Data can support a process, but it can’t replace judgment. Cleveland mistook structure for substance.
The Browns also sent the wrong message. By turning interviews into homework assignments, they made it feel like candidates were auditioning for the organization instead of entering a partnership. In a league where elite coaches want autonomy and alignment, that’s a clear red flag.
The irony is that this franchise has spent years trying to project stability and professionalism. This search did the opposite. It suggested insecurity, micromanagement, and a disconnect from how the NFL coaching market actually works.
If Cleveland ends up settling for a lesser option after driving away top candidates, this moment will be remembered as another self-inflicted mistake. Being data-driven is fine. Forgetting that football is still a people business is how you lose before the season even starts
