ES Chalk Talk Discussion: The Power Lies With the Head Coach, but... Should it?

There is a common ground that I'm seeing amongst the Redskins faithful... It's that the head coach shouldn't also be the GM. There are many valid reasons for that logic, none more than he has no one to really answer to. This is a great point in my eyes. Who does a head coach, that's also a GM, answer to? Generally, that would be the owner... But our owner has gotten into a bit of hot water with the fanbase amd is attempting to stay out of football matters, and on top of that he all but guaranteed Shanahan five years (which he can absolutely go back on, that's the beauty of being the owner, I suppose).

But the overwhelming majority around here does indeed suggest that the route to go is to have a GM and head coach that are separate. Which I'm not sure I agree or disagree with. But I do see both sides of the coin.

By having a general manager involved with the head coach, you essentially divide power amongst them. But when you do that, you often put the head coach in a poor spot with guys on his roster that he never wanted. Sometimes, that's a good thing, sometimes, it's not. The positive in the GM > Coach set up is that you can absolutely hold the coach accountable for their actions while still maintaining some semblence of order in the franchise. The negative of the GM > Coach relationship is that the coach can be outvoted.

Take for example the New England Patriots. Bob Kraft didn't let Parcells "shop for the groceries" as Parcells puts it so Parcells left. They hired Pete Carroll to run the team, but he wasn't given full power. He split it with Bobby Grier (VP player personnel) and COO Andy Wasynczuk. Kraft now admits that to be an error.

When Carroll returned to Seattle, he insisted he get the keys to the kingdom or he wouldn't join the organization, and Paul Allen obliged. It's worked out for Seattle thus far. Carroll's Seattle teams have had fairly subpar offenses as a whole in his three year tenure, but there has been a ton of improvement on the field.

Seattle's records:

2008: 4-12 (Holmgren)

2009: 5-11 (Mara)

2010: 7-9 (Carroll)

2011: 7-9 (Carroll)

2012: 5-4 (Carroll)

Furthermore, their defense rankings skyrocketed. (Pts/Yards)

2008: 25/30 (Holmgren)

2009: 25/24 (Mara)

2010: 25/27 (Carroll)

2011: 7/9 (Carroll)

2012: 3/4 (Carroll)

And we all know what happened with the Patriots when Bob Kraft learned from his error... He hired Belichick and gave him full control. And they won. Super Bowls.

But what worked in New England, and looks like it's panning out in Seattle, doesn't necessarily have to work in D.C. But that also doesn't mean a head coach power structure can't work in D.C., either.

Thus far, it would be a lie to say we've gotten off to a good start with Shanahan. It's been rocky, and whether he's here or not our front office needs to decide the structure in which we go forward with. But let's also keep in mind, we've had many different front office structures in Snyder's tenure. We had Marty/Vinny, Gibbs/Pretty Much Everyone, Zorn/Vinny/Snyder and now Shanahan with full control.

I think a coach having full control is a great strategy. They need to be able to pick their staff and their personnel, so long as they are capable when it comes to personnel. A young coach may be aided by having a personnel guy there to help guide him, while still allowing the coach to shop for his own groceries.

I'm not sure, just like with all things football related, there is a right or wrong answer. I think it depends on where you are and who you are. And those are the kinds of decisions ownership must make and stick to. But I will say this: The Head Coach = General Manager approach has worked, many times. Just because it's not working right now doesn't mean it can't succeed in Washington.

... But I will say this: The Head Coach = General Manager approach has worked, many times. Just because it's not working right now doesn't mean it can't succeed in Washington.

The Shanahan experience is typical: Coaches with full control favor offense or defense -- Shanahan favors the offense; George Allen and Marty favored the defense. They win a lot of games in the regular season, but lose in the playoffs to teams with better balance. Allen and Marty won zero super bowls. Shanny, with full control, has had none.

Like I said, OF, I don't really have a horse in this race. I think its very dependent on situation. But to say Head Coach = GM doesn't work is a bit flawed. Saying the traditional approach doesn't work is flawed too, in my opinion.

When Shanny took over, the one element of our team that wasn’t a total disaster was our defense. In a move that was controversial at the time, he decided to throw our entire defensive system onto the scrap heap and start over. Three years into the program, we’ve got arguably the worst defense in the league. I think that single move has torpedoed Shanny’s program more than anything else has. Trading for McNabb was a mere blip by comparison.

Our defense certainly wasn’t elite in ‘08/’09, but it’s about the only thing that kept us remotely competitive in games. What’s most frustrating to me right now is the idea that if we had kept the 4-3 alignment and the general defensive approach intact, we’d probably still have at least a mediocre defense. Couple that with RGIII on the offensive side, and we’d be a pretty tough team to handle. And we’d all be talking about what a great job Shanny is doing.

It really is a shame, because he’s done a lot of good things. At this point, I think we need to ride it out and hope he’s able to fix it. Maybe by bringing back a Lou Spanos or some other expert in the 3-4, this defense can be salvaged. We’re too far in to turn back now.

I’m just not ready to blow this thing up just because Shanny made a catastrophic mistake with the defense. The reality is we don’t have any idea what Snyder will pull out of his bag of tricks if he pulls the plug on Shanny. He’s already hired Vinny TWICE in the last dozen or so years. I’m not suggesting he’d hire him a third time. But if Snyder were to pull the plug on Shanny, is anyone here confident that Snyder wouldn’t do something utterly cataclysmic for his next move? In a way, Shanny is ‘the devil we know,’ and sticking with him might be a whole lot safer than whatever the alternative is.

Despite plenty of flaws and mistakes, Shanny’s a good football man, and I think we’re better off with him than we’d be if we were to hit the reset button yet again. I’m not eager to find out what’s lurking behind ‘Door #2.’

I think a coach having full control is a great strategy. They need to be able to pick their staff and their personnel, so long as they are capable when it comes to personnel. A young coach may be aided by having a personnel guy there to help guide him, while still allowing the coach to shop for his own groceries.

I'm not sure, just like with all things football related, there is a right or wrong answer. I think it depends on where you are and who you are. And those are the kinds of decisions ownership must make and stick to. But I will say this: The Head Coach = General Manager approach has worked, many times. Just because it's not working right now doesn't mean it can't succeed in Washington.

Well, it depends on certain circumstances, such as innovation, track record, etc.

Look no further than Haslett's hiring to see that evidently he was the ONLY choice who had any knowledge of the 3-4, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was a good choice.

Even Gibbs II, we all had that expectation of the glory days returning, but it became clear the game had passed him since his first departure. The actual game itself with rules included have changed, and either being innovative and adaptive or being extinct is the norm.

So I say no, only because of the way the game has changed, with older coaching possibly not being fully up to date on the way the game changes...