On paper, this one doesn't really thrill me. However, as I've espoused previously, there's usually very little to lose, and often much to gain in terms of information gathering and exposure to different thought processes and philosophies for both the hiring company and the candidate. Of course that's providing you don't lose momentum and miss out on your #1 by stretching it out beyond reason. From a hiring standpoint, if there's a leading candidate to use as a benchmark, interviewing others who are qualified by comparison either can reinforce that opinion or conversely, might prove an eye-opener that argues otherwise. It's all good, so long as it doesn't become a ridiculously drawn out exercise that would suggest to interested prospective GMs that Ross and company don't know what they're looking for. In fact it might provide some pleasant surprises along the way as some folks in reality either far exceed or fall short of what their paper credentials would suggest. :idk: