You call it “semantic issues”, but then your last statement in this paragraph is EXACTLY what I focused on.
You do realize that it’s the leadership, the guy with the title you say you don’t care about or don’t want to be the “face”, that creates this “...motivation... structure and environment that works...”, right?
Now, the problems you gloss over with the QB situation and previous GM are indicative of a major problem. You can’t just pass over that like it’s a side issue. Entire organizations succeed/fail just off of those two roles. The resource management regarding QB has been historically awful. That is a massive handicap for every scout, coach and player in the building. As for Scot, hiring a GM, then firing him in ugly fashion, then not replacing him indicates a lack of structure that belies logic.
You’re saying that you like how they’ve drafted or the results of their jobs, so therefore that’s all that matters, right?
No, because we don’t know exactly where that success came from. That’s the concern. Was it a result of Scot’s influence and, therefore, as that wanes they’ll get worse? That’s a legit question and why it was important to replace him properly. If they felt it was important to hire a personnel guy with that title after the 2014 season, like most successful organizations, why would that change!? Why is that suddenly improper? Are they saying they were stupid to create that position and hire someone with that expertise in the first place?
Which is why, like @Skinsinparadise said, it’d be fine if one of those “good scouts”, like Kyle Smith assuming he is, actually had that title and was leading the charge there. How would that not be better going by your own logic that they’re the source of success? How is that just a semantic issue? I mean, are you saying you don’t mind the idea that they might be limited or hindered in fulfilling their roles of expertise by their leadership?
We can absolutely question that and think they are a hindrance because, ultimately, the team as is hasn’t risen above mediocrity. Now, the roster was in really good shape last season (again, how much was Scot, how much wasn’t? We don’t know), and it’s unfortunate they just got massacred injury-wise, so maybe everything ends up great. But to act like this set up, which has failed repeatedly for the Skins in the past, along with the two massive issues you just glossed over, is nothing to be concerned about or doesn’t matter in the end?
Sorry, can’t get on board with that. Definitely not a “semantic issue”.
I hope you’re right, though, and all is well. That it ends up not affecting anyone negatively, that the leadership as is enables these guys and listen to the right voices at the right time. They did have something good going, hopefully it hasn’t been completely ruined and they can take the next step. It’s just hard to believe knowing what it takes organizationally in terms of structure and resource management when comparing them to the more consistently successful franchises (or even the ones who have success more intermittently but at the highest level).