Lead: The Cleveland Browns have expanded their coaching-evaluation toolkit, requiring essays, questionnaires and personality assessments during interviews, NBC Sports reported after a Friday appearance on The Rich Eisen Show. Tom Pelissero of NFL Network described the process as unusually data-heavy and iterative. The approach has coincided with the departure of chief strategy officer Paul DiPodesta, whose tenure produced limited on-field results, and appears to have shaped which candidates remain engaged in the search. Observers now question whether the method helps find better leaders or deters top options.
Key takeaways
- The Browns use written questionnaires, multi-part essays and personality tests as part of their coaching interviews, according to Tom Pelissero (NFL Network), as reported by NBC Sports.
- The process includes additional homework assignments for candidates who advance from a first round into a second round of interviews.
- Some candidates reportedly withdrew from consideration; Mike McDaniel and Jesse Minter are named by media accounts as having left the process.
- Paul DiPodesta, the club’s former chief strategy officer, recently departed; his analytics-driven approach is widely associated with the team’s current methods.
- Cleveland’s approach favors analytically minded applicants and may skew toward candidates from academic backgrounds, though team officials do not require any specific résumé profile.
- Critics argue the process risks sidelining candidates whose strengths lie in player relationships, teaching and in-game leadership rather than formal data exercises.
- The long-term payoff of the method remains to be seen: hiring decisions will reveal whether the process yields improved on-field results.
Background
The Browns have leaned into data and structured evaluation for several years, a trend amplified during the tenure of Paul DiPodesta, who served as chief strategy officer before his recent departure. DiPodesta’s role emphasized converting subjective judgments into measurable inputs and building formal evaluation systems across personnel decisions. That philosophy has left a lasting imprint on how Cleveland vets coaching candidates, with the franchise now running multi-stage interviews that include written and psychometric components.
Across the NFL, teams vary widely in interview technique: some prioritize in-person conversations and references, others incorporate analytics teams or schematics review. Cleveland’s model stands out because it attempts to quantify aspects of leadership and fit that are often assessed qualitatively. That shift reflects a broader league trend toward analytics, but Cleveland’s intensity and formalization of written evaluations appear more pronounced than the norm.
Main event
On a recent Friday episode of The Rich Eisen Show, NFL Network reporter Tom Pelissero outlined the Browns’ multi-part coaching evaluation. He described initial questionnaires, multi-part essays and personality testing followed by additional take-home assignments for candidates who make the first cut. According to Pelissero, the franchise repeats this structured approach across multiple hiring cycles.
Rich Eisen reacted with surprise on air when told that candidates might be asked to write essays about their motivations and approach to the job. Pelissero clarified that these are formal elements of the process and are intended to surface decision-making styles, communication ability and cultural fit in measurable ways. The Browns’ personnel staff, the report says, synthesizes these inputs alongside tape study and interviews.
Media accounts have linked the approach to a pattern of candidates declining to continue. It was reported that Mike McDaniel ultimately withdrew from consideration and later accepted another opportunity; Jesse Minter also pursued a role elsewhere, taking a defensive coordinator position in Baltimore. Whether the process directly caused those departures is not established, but the sequence has prompted public debate about trade-offs in Cleveland’s methodology.
Analysis & Implications
The Browns’ structured evaluation aims to reduce bias and improve predictive hiring by converting intangible qualities into comparable data points. In theory, written responses and psychometrics allow evaluators to contrast leadership philosophy, problem-solving and cultural alignment across candidates. That can help scale assessments when ownership and front offices want consistent inputs rather than relying solely on individual interview impressions.
In practice, however, over-formalization risks excluding candidates who excel in human skills that are harder to capture on paper, such as bedside coaching, motivational presence and in-game adaptability. NFL head coaching requires rapid interpersonal judgment with players and staff; if the hiring funnel disproportionately favors analytic literacy, it may miss proven leaders whose strengths are primarily relational or situational.
There is also a political and market effect: demanding multi-stage homework and essays may impose time costs that discourage candidates with multiple options. High-demand coaches and coordinators weigh opportunity cost; a process perceived as cumbersome could push finalists toward simpler, faster routes. That may shrink the candidate pool to applicants who either prefer structured evaluation or have fewer competing offers.
Comparison & Data
| Typical NFL team | Cleveland Browns (per NBC/NFL sources) |
|---|---|
| Interviews focused on meetings, film review and references. | Structured interviews plus questionnaires, essays and personality tests. |
| Occasional written assignment or schematic walkthrough. | Multi-part essays and staged homework tied to interview rounds. |
| Evaluations often qualitative and led by GM/HC input. | Aggregate scoring intended to convert subjective traits into data. |
The table provides a qualitative contrast rather than exhaustive metrics; public data on each team’s internal hiring steps are limited. Still, Cleveland’s process is notable for formal written components and repeatable homework assignments that many franchises do not routinely require.
Reactions & Quotes
Observers on the show and in reporting framed the Browns’ system as distinctive and potentially polarizing. Below are brief excerpts used to convey context from the on-air discussion and reporting.
“The Browns’ search process…is unlike any other in the NFL,”
Tom Pelissero, NFL Network (as quoted on The Rich Eisen Show)
This comment summarized the program’s unusual formalization: Pelissero emphasized repeated data collection and homework elements that set Cleveland apart from peer clubs. The remark was reported by NBC Sports and became the basis for subsequent reporting about candidate withdrawals.
“There’s a written test? Really?”
Rich Eisen, The Rich Eisen Show
Eisen’s reaction captured a common response among media and fans who view written exams as uncommon in coaching searches. The exchange highlighted a broader conversation about how teams assess leadership versus technical knowledge.
Unconfirmed
- That Mike McDaniel explicitly withdrew because of the Browns’ testing and homework requirements—media accounts imply a link but direct causation is not confirmed.
- That Jesse Minter rejected Cleveland primarily due to the process—Minter accepted a Baltimore role, but motive attribution lacks direct confirmation.
- That the Browns will ultimately hire a coach “no one else wants”—this is speculative and not supported by direct evidence.
Bottom line
Cleveland’s multi-stage, written-heavy coaching search represents a deliberate attempt to systematize subjective hiring judgments. That approach can surface consistencies across candidates and align hires with an analytics-minded organizational culture. However, formalization carries trade-offs: it may reduce the pool of candidates who prioritize relational leadership, impose time costs that deter finalists, and risk elevating checklist performance over proven people management.
The test of the system will be practical: whether the coach eventually hired translates the evaluation data into improved player development and on-field results. Browns executives will need to weigh the benefits of structured measurement against the central NFL truth that head coaching success often hinges on building trust, teaching effectively and making real-time decisions under pressure.
Sources
- NBC Sports (sports media — original report summarizing The Rich Eisen Show interview)
- NFL Network (broadcaster — employer of reporter Tom Pelissero cited in coverage)
- The Rich Eisen Show (broadcast/program — original on-air segment referenced in reporting)