PeterMP Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I thought it would be interesting to actually take some time and look at the personnel moves in the first 2 years of Scot's tenure in San Francisco. First though, things are a little confusing because he didn't hire Mike Nolan as coach. Nolan was actually hired before him, and his job title is VP of Player Personnel. The power sharing system isn't quite clear to me so credit/blame assignment might not be trivial. For example, the first draft by that regime was the Alex Smith/Aaron Rodgers draft in which they took Smith. Both Scot and Nolan have taken "credit" for the idea of taking Smith over Rodgers (or anybody else with the 1st pick). Nolan has said that the though that Smith was the harder worker and that his personality would mesh better with Nolan's. In comments that echoed what he has said here, Scot talked about Smith's toughness and wanting to build a tough team. Free agency that year they sign several people at the end of their careers. For example, they sign Johnnie Morton who at that point in time had been in the league for 11 years. He's in San Francisco for one year and then out of the league. This people mostly appear to be on offense. Some signings are clearly longer term in nature. For example, they sign Jonas Jennings who is a starting LT with the Bills. He's in San Francisco for several years, but never seems to do much. It appears that a combination of injuries and personal problem derail his career. They also bring in a bunch of guys that haven't done much in the league and never do much in the league. Essentially it appears to be an effort to take a chance on some guys. There don't seem to be any big hits in free agency. There is one trade. They apparently are thin at CB so they trade a vet lineman to the Broncos for an ex-number 1 pick that hasn't worked for them. This trade is a loss for them. The CB they get doesn't work for them and is off the team by the end of the year, and the lineman goes on and plays for several more years, including being a somewhat frequent starter. The draft is where things stands out, especially the middle rounds. This is the draft where they get several people that go on and be quality starters, including Frank Gore and Synder (starting OL) in the 3rd round). He has misses though. Rasheed Marshall is a 5th round WR. He plays 1 year as a punt returner, but only has 1 reception. He's out of the league after that first year. As near as I can tell, there is no major injury. In general, there's nothing here I would have hated at the time. There are mistakes with 20/20 hindsight, but (for example) I wouldn't have told you at the time of the 2005 draft that Rodgers was going to have a HOF career and that Smith would have some good years, but would never be great. I don't love the signing of the older players like Morton, but I can understand it, especially on offense with a rookie QB. I do think those signings are better than bringing guys that are (presumably) in the middle of their careers and looking for another big contract. Presumably, guys like Morton knew they were at the end, and if you had a young guy that you wanted to get more snaps, somebody like Morton wouldn't have complained too much. It isn't a situation where Morton playing less is likely to affect his next contract too much (as there wasn't another contract). The next year is similar. More bringing in older guys at the end of their career. For example, they bring in Larry Allen. Allen actually seems to give them 2 years of quality play, when he's healthy, but that's limited. They get 1 year of Pro Bowl quality out of 10 year veteran Walt Harris at CB, and he's there for 3 years, but never repeats his first year performance. The big free agency pick up is Antonio Bryant WR is a complete bust. He apparently conflicts with Nolan, has drug issues, and is only on the team for one year. There are a few player-for-player trades here that essentially amount to nothing on either end (anybody remember Taylor Jacobs for Mike Rumph?). There are two trades for players for draft picks. They trade Barlow (RB) to the Jets for a pick and Lloyd to us for a 3rd and 4th (in different drafts). The guys they get for the Lloyd pick never turn into anything. If you could lose a trade where you traded Lloyd, the 49ers lost this one. Though it is certainly possible that getting rid of Lloyd itself is a win (addition through subtraction). They trade the Barlow pick to Seattle for a WR. The WR plays one year with the 49ers is out of the league. Seattle takes a Mansfield Wrotto (OF) who stays with them for a few years, but never does too much. He does start 7 games with the Bills in 2010. This has to be a loss for the for the 49ers. In the 2006 draft, the big pick up is Vernon Davis in the 1st round. They also pick up Delanie Walker as TE in the 6th round. Walker turns into a solid player. Haralson is a 5th round pick that over times becomes a starter at LB. Again, there is nothing great in the trades or free agency. The draft is where things still stand out. They improve from 2-14 in 2004 (before he goes to the 49ers) to 4-12 in 2005 (first year there, the Smith draft), to 7-9 in 2006, The problem is they don't really progress from there. In a few years, they fire Nolan and hire Singletary. I don't know if Scot made the decision to hire Singletary. His title has changed in this time to GM. He also talks about the pressure of having to fire Nolan affecting his drinking in one story. I'd at least like to think if you made the guy fire the old coach, you'd let him pick the new coach. They go 8-8 Singletary's first year, then Scot is out. They go backwards the next year, and then Singletary is out. Over Scot's career, the 49ers go 31-49. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 To answer the thread title, although it doesn't show through his tenure there he laid the foundations for the bulk of the 2011 through '13 success. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I have to admit, I worry Scot McC is another Casserly - a guy whose reputation is greatly inflated by a couple of draft steals and learning under the best GM of his generation, but whose failures and shortcomings are obscured by questions/excuses of who really was responsible. I would've preferred Pioli, who had a solid track record of success in personnel negated by a complete failure in coaching hires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I think being a solid GM is like hitting in baseball. The good ones hit on one out of three. If you can get two quality players out of each draft you are doing great. Better than the rest of the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Its interesting that you chose to look at San Fran instead of Seattle. What he did in Seattle is almost legendary. They are a contender for the Super Bowl every year because of his talent evaluation. Plain and simple. ANd you didnt mention Frank Gore, patrick Willis or Joe staley who were all drafted in San Fran. The guy has a long track record of successful talent evaluation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINSFAN87 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I have to admit, I worry Scot McC is another Casserly - a guy whose reputation is greatly inflated by a couple of draft steals and learning under the best GM of his generation, but whose failures and shortcomings are obscured by questions/excuses of who really was responsible. I would've preferred Pioli, who had a solid track record of success in personnel negated by a complete failure in coaching hires. Really? I think Scot has the knowledge and enthusiasm that is what the Redskins need to rebuild this team the right way. He was born in the Ron Wolf/ Ted Thompson era and started learning from those guys, it doesn't get any better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Scot is a football guy through and through. What brought him down in San Fran was the day to day crap. Planning a new stadium, dealing with media releases, team charities, etc. Let Bruce deal with winning off the field and Scot will have us winning on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocet Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 The question for me is where does GMSM fit on that scale... I tend to think he lands up more toward the Beathard end of the thing. Better than the middlin' Casserly and waaaaaaaaaaay the hell away from the Cerrato side. velocet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Nice thread and OP, Pete. My simple overview: Scot is a very competent GM. Not a genius. Not a miracle worker. Just my somewhat (not highly) informed take. Likely the best we've had in house since you know who. I would give him no less than 4 years as unconditionally as possible to see where it goes. Per talent finders---I think when you look at all the data on such, it's often (should be obvious) a hit and miss deal even among the best, and that you have to gauge things within that reality. Cherry picking history (a popular methodology among arguers in all things) can make almost any of them look good or bad at times. Even the most respected at such have their share of outright droughts as well as the individual major misses over time. Competently building and/or compently managing a solid squad of assistant talent finders/evaluators (other sources as well as scouts) from the GM (if you have one of those types) on down the whole hierarchy devoted to it, sure is big. HC role is big. FO role is big. It isn't just the singular big role talent-finder guy with the final say that makes the talent choices look solid. It's the whole support system dedicated to that part of the game. Hell, Team cohesion is big, as is the garden those seeds get planted in after being chosen---just as we argue about here daily, often to the other extreme where the garden can become a useful scapegoat for overestimated talent (not aimed at you know who at all, just in general). All captain obvious stuff, but I've come to take the view that even a lot of c.o. stuff is often revelatory here these days. It sometimes is for me. My point/bottom line being, Scot will get much benefit of any doubt in my book for quite awhile even when I'm critical of him (hasn't really happened yet). I don't think he's some football god, but is a very competent guy at GM and quite possibly, even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 To answer the thread title, although it doesn't show through his tenure there he laid the foundations for the bulk of the 2011 through '13 success. Hail. This. Singletary as a coach was a train wreck, but the 49ers had a talented roster/foundation. Harbaugh walked into an excellent situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo'sRangers Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 ....you didn't mention Frank Gore, Patrick Willis or Joe Staley who were all drafted in San Fran.... You did leave out some big names in your "breakdown". Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Its interesting that you chose to look at San Fran instead of Seattle. What he did in Seattle is almost legendary. They are a contender for the Super Bowl every year because of his talent evaluation. Plain and simple. ANd you didnt mention Frank Gore, patrick Willis or Joe staley who were all drafted in San Fran. The guy has a long track record of successful talent evaluation I didn't go back to Seattle because his role in actually picking players was even less clear in Seattle than in San Francisco. He's been Director of College Scouting and Senior Personnel Executive, but in both of his tenures there they've also had a GM as well as strong head coaches that (likely) have significant say in picking players (Mike Holmgram and Pete Carroll). I specifically DID mention Frank Gore: "This is the draft where they get several people that go on and be quality starters, including Frank Gore and Synder (starting OL) in the 3rd round." And I didn't mention Wilis or Staley because they didn't come in the first two years, and as the first sentence of the post said, I was ONLY looking at the first 2 years. I did that as a result both the amount of time it took me to look at the things in the detail I did, and the length of the post already from doing two years. Wilils and Staley are both picks in his 3rd draft. I'll make you a deal. You sit down and hammer out what happened in years 3 and 4, and I'll sit down and detail 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I specifically DID mention Frank Gore: "This is the draft where they get several people that go on and be quality starters, including Frank Gore and Synder (starting OL) in the 3rd round." Sorry I missed that. I enjoyed your post. I wasnt trying to bash it. I was just raising some concerns that I saw in it. It's a little unfair to judge any GM off of 2 years of their work. Especially when many would argue they were his worst 2 years. His track record since then has been stellar. I hope he is here picking our players for the next 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzplay Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Good GMs can continue to build a team even though the current coach might not be the most suitable/capable person for leading that team. They see the big picture, the long-term. McCloughan will build a team; we'll see who's around to lead it. I like the fact that he got in and realized, almost immediately, the glaring need to hire a qb coach (and a damn good one, at that). That then-GM Bruce Allen didn't see that as necessary when hiring Gruden, a first-time head coach...........that, for me, is one of many justifiable indictments of Allen's competence as a front-office leader. Shaking hands, kissing babies, alumni relations......do what you do best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Good GMs can continue to build a team even though the current coach might not be the most suitable/capable person for leading that team. They see the big picture, the long-term. McCloughan will build a team; we'll see who's around to lead it. I like the fact that he got in and realized, almost immediately, the glaring need to hire a qb coach (and a damn good one, at that). That then-GM Bruce Allen didn't see that as necessary when hiring Gruden, a first-time head coach...........that, for me, is one of many justifiable indictments of Allen's competence as a front-office leader. Shaking hands, kissing babies, alumni relations......do what you do best. Anti-whoever plots/conjecture/speculation etc are more fun the ones that may "defend" or are "pro" the hated figure (whoever it is). But there are some who think/say that Dan/Bruce actually had visions in their head that led them to lobby gruden rather strongly (and who as a new guy with connections to bruce was seen as "quite pliable") to be that one-on-one qb guru, thinking it should not only be a team guy more than a private tutor like rg3 had acquired on his own, but were it actually the HC, such would be to rg3's advantage and credibility and boost his confidence (and he was still the guy they wanted to see pay off of course). And thus go w/o the asst. qb coach. In such a scenario, Gruden is still accountable for either acquiescence or enthusiastic agreement to such, of course. Here, it was not the "first instinct" of Jay, or something he came to them with and/or was insistent at all (which would make sense). But for now that's just as vaporous as 90% of the other stuff that people have hung their hats on with to-the-grave fervor for many months. It's just not as appealing a vapor to many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Wonderful post, I truly enjoyed reading through all of the information. However, I do tend to side with a lot of the comments with regards to it only being for 2 years. I completely understand why you did that though - this had to be VERY time consuming so please don't take it as a knock on your thread/work. I've very eager to get the details on his other years as well as his tenure in Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I agree with a lot of the other posts in the thread so far. One thing I see from McCloughan in both San Francisco and Seattle are teams that had an identity while he was associated. If he can bring an identity to the Redskins then I think that's a huge improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Scot has already had a significant impact on our depth. Injuries happen every year and it's the teams with good depth and key players healthy that survive. How many times have the Pats lost key players (Gronk, Edelman, various RBs, secondary, etc.) and still kept winning? Already in preseason we're seeing the depth leave its mark. A couple hits in draft and free agency each year and we'll stay on the right path IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I don't know but it must have been pretty bad to deserve this hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Really? I think Scot has the knowledge and enthusiasm that is what the Redskins need to rebuild this team the right way. He was born in the Ron Wolf/ Ted Thompson era and started learning from those guys, it doesn't get any better than that. Yes, as I stated, he learned under the best GM of his generation. Just as Casserly did (and lest we forget, Beathard retired with a lot more rings than Wolf, and convinced Wolf to trade him Jim Lachey for Jay Schroeder). But for all his promise as a scout, Casserly proved to be an absolutely pathetic GM. I'm glad we finally hired our first legit GM since Beathard, and I hope he turns out great. I do think the jury is still out, that's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I have nothing to contribute, but I do want to give a very enthusiastic thank you to both PeterMP and the rest of the participants in this thread. This is why I love ES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I didn't go back to Seattle because his role in actually picking players was even less clear in Seattle than in San Francisco. He's been Director of College Scouting and Senior Personnel Executive, but in both of his tenures there they've also had a GM as well as strong head coaches that (likely) have significant say in picking players (Mike Holmgram and Pete Carroll). Kinda reminds me a little of Scott Pioli. Highly regarded player personnel guy without full-on GM duties, but once he got his own unquestioned command as GM, it didn't go so well in KC. Now he's downgraded to assistant GM in Atlanta. Now saying that's Scot M's destiny, but he could easily go that way simply based on the cloud that follows this franchise that's eaten up others that've dared to fight this fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 In looking at Scott's first two years in San Francisco it's worth noting Nolan had final say the first year and Scott was hired by Nolan to handle the front office reporting to him. Scott only became the final say GM in Nolans last year (he was fired by Scott at the behest of ownership part way through that year). Singeltary was the interim HC who was then made the full time HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brokenstriker Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I have to admit, I worry Scot McC is another Casserly - a guy whose reputation is greatly inflated by a couple of draft steals and learning under the best GM of his generation, but whose failures and shortcomings are obscured by questions/excuses of who really was responsible. I would've preferred Pioli, who had a solid track record of success in personnel negated by a complete failure in coaching hires. at least there were draft steals ... GMSM had a hand in rebuilding a roster that has suffered the rape and pillage of Vinnie "the Destroyer" Cerrato ... which is exactly what the Redskins need ... all things considered ... I'll take that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.