Background: A Week 3 Shift and the Fallout
The Tennessee Titans’ decision to strip play-calling duties from offensive coordinator Brian Callahan and hand them to quarterbacks coach Bo Hardegree did not emerge from a vacuum. According to a new report from Terry McCormick of TitanInsider.com, the move likely originated with Titans owner Amy Adams Strunk rather than the football staff alone. The shift came after a Week 3 loss to the Indianapolis Colts, a game that exposed lingering issues on offense and consistency that frustrated leadership on multiple levels.
While Callahan remained a central figure in the Titans’ offensive plan, the push to reallocate play-calling duties reportedly came from higher up the chain of command. The prevailing belief among some members of the coaching staff is that president of football operations Chad Brinker and general manager Mike Borgonzi were the ones who carried the message from ownership, signaling a desire for tangible accountability and a different on-field approach.
Who Was Responsible? The Ownership vs. Football Ops Debate
Ownership involvement in football decisions is not uncommon in the NFL, but the balance between business leadership and football operations can be fragile. McCormick’s reporting suggests that, in this case, Amy Adams Strunk may have exercised her authority to direct a change that is often kept within the purview of the coaching staff. The tension lies not in intent—striving for functional improvement—but in how decisions are communicated and who foots the strategic responsibility for results.
From the perspective of the Titans’ leadership, there is a delicate line between confident accountability and unnecessary meddling. Proponents of strong ownership influence argue it’s essential for aligning the organization’s ambitions with its on-field performance. Critics maintain that too much intervention can undermine trust in the football operations team and destabilize a staff’s long-term planning.
The Timing and the Interim Question
The timeline around the firing announcement raised immediate questions. The Titans announced Callahan’s firing, but the subsequent delay in naming an interim head coach created a sense of disarray. The clock later intensified as Mike Vrabel, a former Titans coach, returned to Nashville amid speculation about his possible influence or a future coaching role—an unresolved storyline that added layers of uncertainty for the franchise, players, and fans alike.
In this environment, decisions that would typically be internal to the coaching staff appeared to be influenced by ownership’s broader goals. The perception of ownership-driven changes can affect how players trust the chain of command, how assistants view their career prospects, and how the organization projects stability to its fanbase and potential free agents.
Implications for Trust, Stability, and Future Hiring
For head-coaching candidates evaluating job offers, the Titans’ reported dynamics present a cautionary note. Franchises that combine a strong ownership presence with a willingness to intervene in football operations may achieve upside if decisions align with improved results. However, when ownership signals a want for rapid, visible changes, it can cast doubt on the continuity and long-term planning essential for sustained success.
From a player’s standpoint, the optics of leadership decisions matter. Quarterbacks and play-callers alike want a clear sense of who is driving the game plan, how changes are tested, and what criteria dictate turnover. If ownership is seen as the ultimate arbiter of on-field strategy, it can complicate the dynamics of trust, accountability, and development within the squad.
Looking Ahead: A Franchise at a Fork in the Road
As the Titans navigate this chapter, the organization faces a fundamental question: will ownership-driven changes yield the needed on-field improvement, or will they risk alienating coaches and players who benefit from decision-making that remains firmly in the football operations camp? The answer may shape not only this season’s trajectory but also the franchise’s approach to leadership and hiring in the years ahead. For candidates evaluating Tennessee, the question extends beyond X’s and O’s to whether the ownership culture supports steady, thoughtful decision-making that prioritizes long-term success over short-term headlines.
