Most candidates walk into a job interview knowing a fair amount about the organization. At senior levels, they are expected to have a pretty clear plan. I'm curious whether the same expectation applies to coaching candidates - especially those whose teams reached the playoffs, which means most of the credible pool.
The way I see it, these guys have been immersed in their own teams and opponents for at least six months. Now they are either preparing for a divisional playoff game (Shurmur, McDaniels, Patricia) or coming off a completely draining wild-card prep and heartbreaking loss (Wilks).
Aside from somebody like Schwartz - who actually game-planned against your team this year - how familiar would you expect the candidate to be with your team's situation and personnel? How specific a plan would you expect him to have for turning the Giants around? Would you be put off if he had not been paying attention to the Eli Apple situation, or Beckham's rehab?
Alternatively, would you stick to more general questions about the new job, and maybe drill down on details of recent games in his current gig? For example, perhaps ask Wilks what he would do differently if he could play New Orleans again this week?
It does seem that an idle coach has something of an advantage. On the other hand, Tom Coughlin was apparently so overprepared for his NYG interview that he nearly talked the Maras out of hiring him.