• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by thesubmittedone

  1. Yup. I linked to it in the FO thread and highlighted that portion of it. Also mentioned it here. It’s written in their contract that any move they make is subject to the approval of the other. Not sure how a stalemate occurs in that scenario, lol, I didn’t see that mentioned so maybe you read it somewhere else. What interests me is exactly what they mean by “move”. Does it mean Lynch has a say in the coaching staff just like Kyle has one on player personnel? We know Lynch said he has final say over the 90, FA and draft, so I’d assume that’s what it means and it works both ways. Which is interesting to say the least. So Lynch makes the decisions regarding player personnel while Kyle does regarding the coaching staff, but there’s a “check” by each one to make sure there’s no major disagreement on any of it. I wonder if they ever had to use it. But what a good way to make sure no one goes rogue and they remain tied to the hip. It is a good set up and would be great if we ended up with the same thing.
  2. Yup. I would also add that this is the first true organizational reset we’ve ever had under Dan. We’ve never seen anything like it. Even when Gibbs came and was given total control, the FO was largely kept in tact and the only major change came in the way of the coaching staff. This is much, much different. Not only have we seen the removal of entrenched, long-tenured members like Hess and Schaefer, but the few who have remained were interviewed again (so nothing was guaranteed), most of whom were given new, better fitting, titles/roles than previously (Doug, Kyle). This isn’t Dan’s organization with just a new HC hire and some new coaches he brings along, pulling the wool over our eyes as if that change is all that was needed and only the previous coaches were to blame. It’s Ron’s and they’re all in it together from top to bottom. No factions/divisions, no competing agendas, and Dan will have to work much harder to create them. There should be a level of cohesion like we haven’t seen before. Still, it would be perfect structurally if a GM/EVP is named and given final say over the roster (at least the 90, FA and draft) like Ron originally stated, while being his equal in the hierarchy. We can point to Ron’s words about not wanting total control on that side of things, but if he doesn’t accept that set up we have to question his talk regarding the matter. But if that happens, we’d really be rolling then and there’d be no concern outside of Dan messing things up (which remains no matter what). I’m holding out hope that’s what happens. That Standig article in the Athletic (I think you posted a pic of a portion of it in the FO thread) had some interesting tidbits in it that I think even he didn’t realize their implications. In it, he mentioned that teams with guys in lower level positions wouldn’t allow you to interview them for GM if you weren’t going to give them some level of control over the roster. That the title itself wouldn’t be enough and it’d be considered a lateral move, even if they weren’t GM before. To me, that means giving Kyle the title we did leaves it open for him to get it and/or keeps the pool of candidates as wide as possible, as well. We’d have everyone under contract in an assistant GM position as well as those not under contract able to be interviewed after the draft. We can go through as exhaustive a process as possible so long as that control is given and not kept by Ron. It’s a golden opportunity, really. I hope that’s what the plan actually is and it's not what Standig read into it.
  3. I think you accidentally made it a “poll-only” thread where no one could comment, so I changed it for you. I like the idea of Alex being the backup just because of how good he’s been around other young QBs. But that contract sucks and his leg probably won’t let him anyway. So I don’t know, whatever.
  4. Dan gave Gibbs what he wanted, but not what he needed. That’s been my biggest takeaway from that era for a long time now. The football emperor coach just doesn’t work the vast majority of the time. One can argue it simply never works unless you have Tom Brady. There’s got to be someone in the building who is, at the very least, his equal organizationally and can focus on the roster while the coach focuses on teaching. Dan didn’t give Gibbs that, or encourage him to find that guy, and it’s no surprise Gibbs doesn’t see anything wrong with it (at least not openly). Most coaches are confident and think they can do it all. Furthermore, when you read between the lines, you could argue Dan was really that “equal” organizationally focusing on the roster when Gibbs was here, though most of the time it was just “tell me what to do and I’ll do it”. Which is awful. So it is concerning that Gibbs is seemingly encouraging Ron to embrace that whole dynamic, never mind the other issues with it that’s been pointed out regarding Gibbs being the only guy Dan would act like that with. That being said, Gibbs is saying he wasn’t involved in the “layout” so maybe that concern is unfounded. There are enough indications, from Ron and otherwise, that show they do “get it” and will eventually have that structure in place. I just hope Ron either elevates Kyle Smith to GM or we get another and it’s structured properly. That is, and remains, important. If Ron remains solely at the top it's absolutely concerning. And I get the idea of a coach possibly being a better barrier to Dan than a GM that @Skinsinparadise talks about (it’s sad we even have to think on these lines), but I think you can accomplish that in better ways. I just posted in the FO thread a link to an article about the Niners and how Kyle and John have written into their contracts that every move is subject to the approval of the other. That right there is a great way to create that barrier. You don’t even need a “tie-breaker” owner in that case. Either they both agree or they don’t make the move and have to figure something else out. With all this said, organizationally we’re better off than what it was like with Gibbs 2.0. Arguably, this is the best it’s ever been under Dan (though, if we’re just talking structurally, the best we had was when Scot was hired as GM; TP with GM and HC in charge of their respective departments reporting to him, but Allen at TP muddled everything and Scot had his own personal issues he couldn’t overcome). The big difference is having someone like Kyle Smith overseeing the player personnel and there isn’t someone unqualified/incompetent as Dan’s top exec. Perhaps the biggest thing is we have a more subdued Dan due to witnessing his own destructive behavior and its effects for a longer period of time (though that can change real fast). Still, that doesn’t mean it’s the best set up most conducive to success. It’s just infinitely better than the “vague and incoherent nonsense with too many voices in redundant roles but only one unqualified guy doing what he wants a bunch of times anyway” one we’ve had for the vast majority of Dan’s tenure. All that did was set everyone within it up for failure and to be scapegoated and vilified for it as it eventually ran its course. I’m eager to see what happens after the draft.
  5. Great read and another example of how vital organizational structure/alignment is. But I found this part particularly interesting (specifically the bolded):
  6. Well, it’s not a crazy wild assumption to make, but it’s also not set in stone. There are cases in the NFL where the coach is involved in or leading the hire of the GM, but the GM still ends up as his equal with both reporting to the owner. Actually, that’s the majority of them. So there’s still some hope regarding that.
  7. No, all of the ones he listed were with the assumption of actually hiring a GM. @London Kev was then listing the various structures WITH a GM. Scenario A is where the GM reports to Ron who reports to Dan. B is where Ron reports to the GM who reports to Dan. And C is where they’re both equals and both report to Dan. Yeah, that’s what most of us prefer, but at this point that’s unlikely. The best we can hope for is C. As for A, @Skinsinparadise has made some good points as to why, though A isn’t the optimal structure and has failed more than B or C, with Dan being who he is it’s not the end of the world and there may even be some positives to it.
  8. I think that’s what he meant by C. That Ron and the GM are equal and both reporting to Dan. At least that’s how I read it. You might be right, lol. @London Kev what say you?
  9. Yeah, it’s been pretty much covered with only minor nitpicks, I believe. Yes, B or C are the optimal structures and simply have a lot more examples of sustainable success than A, where you only have two in the Seahawks and Pats. Right now, C is the best we can hope for. It’s what Ron himself was alluding to before he got hired (well, B or C), but the concern is how much that changed when Dan gave him everything. The hope is that he, himself, creates that structure (likely after the draft) understanding the importance of checks and balances, and that their definition of “Coach-centric” wasn’t about the coach being the sole, top exec in the organization, but more just about him initially setting everything up in the best way for coaches to succeed.
  10. That is definitely interesting, to say the least. I made a post detailing what I knew about that title. I assumed hiring/firing wasn’t necessarily a power of his, but I wasn’t sure (hence the “likely” qualifier): But this certainly seems to indicate he has that “executive” power, at least. Could just be his recommendation that Ron signed off on, but yeah, very interesting.
  11. Yeah, it’s good, not great, but better than anything we’ve ever had under Dan. A lot of this was discussed in plenty of detail in the thread I linked to. And you’re right, Ron should be able to maintain a more macro view because of his leash. Still, he’s already stated he’s impatient (as coaches usually are), and it’s a LOT on his plate, much of it new to him, so it wouldn’t be ideal if they keep it this way.
  12. A couple things to maybe help with some confusion*: 1) This title means Kyle becomes the guy who oversees both the pro and college scouting departments. He’s in charge of evaluating the talent evaluators themselves (including Santos), assigning tasks/titles to his subordinates, gathering and assessing all the information/scouting reports on players from his subordinates, and creating overall rankings for FA and the draft (big boards). 2) There’s a reason “Executive” is missing from the title (thank God they didn’t add another “Senior” one, it was getting ridiculous, lol). That means he’s still not in charge of creating the overall vision/plan of attack, roster construction, and likely can’t hire/fire anyone himself. Trades, philosophical positions (aggressiveness, positional prioritization, cap allocation, etc...), and final say over the roster aren’t yet his and will remain with Ron. That’s where the GM title comes in, or they can add “Executive” to his title, same deal as long as Dan is essentially the President and both Ron and the EVP/GM report to him regarding their respective departments. If no one is getting final say over the roster and Ron will retain it, there’s really not much of a point to add an EVP/GM. Which would be disappointing if that’s the route they go, but not the end of the world (great conversation here about that if anyone would like). Kyle either gets promoted and gains those added responsibilities (essentially, he becomes the architect of the team), or someone else assumes that title. If the latter occurs, I wouldn’t be surprised if Kyle leaves the organization were someone to offer him a GM position and that title, along with its responsibilities, just gets assumed by the GM/EVP hired. Of course, they could elevate or hire someone else to that spot but it could be viewed as redundant. This will be a good audition to not only see if Kyle can handle all of this, manage his time well, and excel at it, but also see if he can add (or deserves to add) those overarching responsibilities once the draft is over. * This is based on what I’ve come to understand regarding these titles in other organizations around the NFL, but that info isn’t easily accessible and I could be off on some of the minutiae.
  13. You know I can do “insufferable homer” better than anyone here, damnit! Just need a reason.
  14. Yup, and I’d add that, now with Jay/Callahan/KOC gone and an entirely new offense being installed, the “stable system of development” has been reset to a large degree. Haskins is starting over (I know, not totally, but to a large degree). That’s always a big factor in assessing the QB position going into the draft. The guy you’ve spent time developing already, and where he’s at in that development, has increased value because of it. That has been diminished considerably now. So, for me, the answer in this hypothetical is that Kyle Smith has to ultimately decide who has the higher ceiling, if anyone does, and where Haskins is on the road to that ceiling. If it’s not really close or Haskins has the higher one, obviously you stick with Haskins. Don’t spend another first rounder on the position and try to acquire a haul. If there’s a significant enough difference and Burrow (or even Tua or anyone else for that matter) has the higher one, then how long it’ll take for that guy as opposed to the “got one year of development in the NFL already” Haskins will be a factor. If it’s not even close and Burrow (or Tua or anyone else) is just that much better, you run to the podium and take him, even if it means you wasted a little time developing another guy and he’d be ahead of the new guy for a year or even two.
  15. Too simplistic. What ultimately matters is the people given those titles, true. But the titles need to be set up in a way that allows those people to have clearly defined roles and fulfill those roles relative to their expertise without unwarranted interference. People matter. The environment they’re in matters. And that environment is largely contingent upon those titles/roles. Which is why, thus far, the way it’s being set up has been much better than what we’ve had in the past, including with Doug. Saying that doesn’t matter is basically saying Ron is wasting his time defining and assigning these roles so far. Might as well not change a thing other than the people, but that’s not what he’s done. I may have come off wrong there with the ego thing, I wasn’t being negative towards Doug. Let me explain. First, I don’t think we can ignore the Chris Russel report about Doug being upset were Kyle elevated above him regarding player personnel acquisition. And that’s your prerogative, but for all of Russel’s faults, he’s been pretty accurate with his reports regarding the FO the last few years, as @Skinsinparadise has delineated many times. Doesn’t guarantee it’s accurate, but it’s reasonable to assume so. So that’s not a knock on Doug, which is what I was trying to expand upon. It was just a speculative theory on my end. He likely didn’t recognize the issue with his title in the first place there and it’s my opinion that was a symptom of some underlying issue with Bruce. At the very least, he didn’t care for how Bruce saw it, had his own opinion on the matter, and drew a line. The fact that he’s now totally out of player personnel acquisition, Kyle is heading both sides of it, and he was willing to accept that instead of “be upset” means he’s got more of a respect for Ron and how he sees things. Or it could mean he just wants a job no matter what, but I think more highly of Doug than that. So, yes, he put his ego aside. I wasn’t trying to say it like it’s a bad thing, more that he had a right to have that ego with Bruce whereas now he recognizes he doesn’t.
  16. Like we said from the onset. Like we wanted from the onset (or someone else qualified with a similar background in talent evaluation). Yup, and hopefully that’s exactly what happens, they’re not reporting to Ron, and they’re given control over their department with final say over the 90, draft and FA. That being said, it won’t be the end of the world if they are reporting to Ron as we’ve discussed, even though that’s a set up that fails more than the other, because of Dan and the legitimate concerns with him. Yup. I think it also shows that Doug didn’t really respect Bruce as much as he respects Ron. He’s willing to put his ego aside and focus on what Ron thinks is his strength, even if that’s not how he saw himself prior to that, whereas with Bruce he was probably thinking “...I can do whatever you’re doing and better, bro”.
  17. I think this is an audition of sorts to see how he handles the role of overseeing both sides of player personnel acquisition. If he works well with Rob Rogers and Ron in terms of overall vision and resource management, then he gets elevated to GM and, hopefully, gets final say over the roster. But a great move for now and definitely clarifies the roles within the building right now even more. That’s been one my favorite aspects of all the moves thus far. Moving Doug out of personnel acquisition and into focusing on their development, and now this... the old habit of assigning titles to unqualified people with vague roles where you didn’t know who did what is over. I love it. Final step hopefully comes after the draft and you have an organizational structure most conducive to success along with qualified people in those roles for the first time in Dan’s history! Amazing to think about.
  18. This was really my concern from the onset. I absolutely loved that he stated that and it was my favorite part of the (rumored at the time) potential hire. I said as much, but I also said I was worried that Dan would offer the world and Rivera would be seduced by it, going against his own good judgment on the matter. And then the presser happened. The tone changed. And even Ron himself called Snyder’s version of it “unique”. Which, if he’s following that model, isn’t unique at all. It’s effectively the standard, so why call it unique? Hence, this entire discussion. And why we’re all waiting with baited breath as to what happens. And why it’s important for us to understand how vital the way it gets structured is.
  19. Can’t argue there. Hmmm... yeah, I mean, I can see how you’d look at it like that. It’s reasonable. For me, it’s more or less the case initially, but once that structure is created, it’s up to the Owner/Top Exec to discern everything. They’re really responsible at that point. And everyone involved is responsible to and for each other. Lmao... and now what you thought was just an attempt to get everyone to see the forest, you’re stuck discussing every little tree with us, too! For now, yes. The preference is that it doesn’t stay that way and Snyder becomes good at discerning things himself, but yeah, that’s the gist of what we’ve been getting into in terms of the set up. Nonetheless, the hiring process is just the initial step. Redundant, I know, but the structure is key after that. A more accurate analogy would be that you picked the groceries, then your ex is assigned to properly store them. If they end up stale, someone else (counselor?) is put in charge and needs to discern whether they were stale when you brought them or your ex just left them out on the table instead of putting them in the fridge. So, it’s a way to keep you from blaming one another improperly. And there’s a shared responsibility, either way, even though you buying the groceries came first. That might be fair, but that’s why we need someone wiser and above us both in authority to discern who is at fault here! And it matters not which posts came first! See? I was in a spaceship looking at it, but also had a super powerful microscope to see all the pines in their individual glory. I was discussing them with my fellow aliens. That’s when you walked in. I didn’t say it’s irrelevant, just that it changes the entire discussion. And that the way we defined it, as well as everywhere else I’ve heard it or read about it, is that it’s about the structure of the organization so that a coach who is also the top exec is extremely rare and has more examples of failure than success in comparison to other models. I would, but I’m too terrified as to what I might hear. Me? Miss a Kdawg post? Nah, never! I definitely read your posts, it’s just that the definition you give it is simply not what most people do. And it’s not what we were giving it while engaging in this discussion, which when you made that post caused some misunderstandings. Which is okay, that’s why we’re focusing on the important trees that make up the forest and ironing it out! The separation that you make of the monarchical coach model and the non-monarchical one is an exclusively Kdawg production, for instance. That’s a good distinction to make, but we’d make that distinction within the“coach-centric” model as a subset. And, therefore, the examples of either subset’s success are still super rare. Which is important to point out. But you exclusively define “coach-centric” with who came first, where the coach is leading the hires, while only including the ones that ended up with a solid hierarchy/structure that includes a qualified GM with final say over the roster (and not necessarily reporting to the coach). That turns a lot of the comparisons we’re making upside down, lol. Suddenly, a very large part of the NFL is following that model and now we look like idiots for going against it or not preferring it, which isn’t what we were doing. It’s kind of setting us up to be wrong no matter what, but I forgive you.
  20. Yup, which is what our conversation was revolving around. Well, top of the hierarchy means everyone reports to him, right? That’s what organizational hierarchy means. I feel like you’re missing the mark here, not us. There aren’t many examples of that in the league where the coach sits at the top of the hierarchy and the GM reports to him that ends up in success. That’s the point. And no one said that the idea is they’ll automatically fill all the roles, it’s about who is evaluating whom and who has power over whom. Not really. He is until he isn’t. You’re assuming that remains the case, or that the hires being made aren’t a collaborative effort with the owner or the top exec, anyway. But the hierarchy changes as soon as the roles are defined by who reports to whom. It doesn’t actually matter who was hired first or who was leading the hires themselves. If the GM and coach are both reporting to the owner, they are considered equals in the hierarchy. That’s how it’s always been understood. I believed you were when you said our entire conversation was missing the forest for the trees and made the claim that the model itself doesn’t make a difference, or that “it’s been proven there’s no one way to win”. It felt dismissive, to be honest. But after reading more of what you’re saying, you’re just defining things differently that we are. Bottom line? It’s important to have a GM, that he’s qualified, that he has final say over the roster, draft and FA, and that he’s not beholden to the coach. There is no argument there and that is what we’re referring to as the best model when discussing the various ones. That is what the vast majority of successful franchises have. And I think it’s important to recognize that and, if we don’t end up with it, understand why it’s concerning. Well, the problem is you’re defining it unlike how most do, and unlike how we were, which changed the parameters of the discussion. You can’t defend something we weren’t attacking based on our definition. But you’re absolutely right that now with the defined terms we can parse through our views and understand each other much better. Either way, the bottom line remains no matter how anyone defines or labels it. The pattern remains. The preferred, most successful method of organizing in the NFL is you want a qualified GM not beholden to his coach with final say over the roster. We all agree with this. Doesn’t matter how you arrive to it, or who hires whom first. Not really. We were defining “coach-centric”, as most have, to mean that the coach is at the top of the hierarchy (outside of the owner, of course) and the GM reports to him. That includes both the Shanahan/Belichick model as well as the Carroll model. The emphasis for us was about the hierarchy/structure, i.e. who reports to whom. You defined it differently and want to separate it. You also included the Chiefs and Niners as examples of a coach-centric model when that is not how we were defining it, as the coach doesn’t have power over the GM within the organization, regardless of who hired whom first. They’re both equally reporting to the Owner/top exec and are not beholden to each other. So, yeah, that is introducing a new way of looking at the models. But, like you said, the important thing is we understand that now and can parse through our views better. I think that’s what a lot of this conversation was about, anyway, and I don’t think any forest was missed.
  21. Not to sound brash, but I don’t think you’re following my posts correctly, then. In fact, I’ve stated multiple times now that the NFL is owner-centric in reality. It’s really not about that. What we are, and should be focused on, is the organizational structure. That absolutely matters. You want the qualified individuals in roles they can fulfill relative to their expertise and without unwarranted interference. Which is what you’re sort of saying here later on, and what we pretty much all are. And you keep getting it wrong with the Chiefs and Niners. They aren’t “Coach-centric”, not according to how we’re defining it. They both have GMs that have final say over the roster, draft and FA. They both report to the owner or top exec, not the coach. You can’t call that “coach-centric” unless you’re bringing your own definition, which changes the entire conversation. There isn’t that much of a difference, if there is any, with their structure than in Tennessee or Green Bay. That is, unless, you think whomever was hired first is automatically the center of everything. I mean, that’s crazy to me, but I can’t stop you from looking at it that way. I don’t think anyone does. But, yes, there is a way that’s been proven. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions for a reason. I think it’s important to recognize patterns and successful models for what they are. I think it’s also important to recognize exceptional cases for what they are. I don’t think it’s ok to make claims like it’s all the same just because of a couple of exceptions. Ok, just saw this. I guess it makes sense now why you’re saying that. I figured that’s what was happening. Honestly, that’s not the definition we’re giving it, so you’re kind of inserting your own here and then telling us how to feel about it. I don’t think there’s a single soul around the league who looks at it like that. It’s about how things are structured and who reports to whom. That’s what we’re discussing here. Not who hires whom first, which is a small part of it and has a lot to do with timing versus a “centric” model. If the GM and coach both report to the owner or another top exec, it’s not “coach-centric”. I don’t know how you can claim that, the coach doesn’t have the power to fire who he wants, neither does the GM. If the Coach reports to the GM, then it’s “GM-centric”. If the GM reports to the coach, only then can it be “coach-centric”. As far as I know and no one has ever pointed out another example, there are only two examples of this in the NFL right now. That’s the Seahawks and Patriots. That’s it. Everywhere else either the GM and HC both report to the owner as equals with final say over their respective departments or the HC reports to the GM. Who hired whom first isn’t a factor here, as you have multiple instances where that structure exists whether the coach or GM was hired first. That’s the understanding of it I believe we’re all operating on here when discussing the matter. You’re introducing another way of looking at “centric” models that we weren’t.
  22. Those are great points. Coaches sort of have a default barrier there because of what they do day to day. And we don’t hear much about Dan getting involved in game plans, scheme, and whatnot... though we do have the infamous “Mike Nolan vanilla ice cream” stuff, lol. But that was a long time ago. I did recently read that Dan wanted to go back to the 4-3 himself... but who knows how much priority was on that. I’d even add that, since they’re given way more attention by the media, and you got cameras and reporters around them constantly, Dan would naturally be more inclined to stay away from that while with a GM that obstacle isn’t nearly as prevalent. But it highlights the amount of stuff that’s going to be on Ron’s plate, too. He’s got to do all that and still be an executive on top of it. He’s got to do the micro-managing coaches are involved in while looking at it on a macro level. And then he’s got to manage Dan on that level, as well. That is so ridiculous, but it fits. I think, however, that a legitimately qualified GM would be just as busy and act just as professionally as any coach, especially during the offseason. I think the problem here is we had Bruce and Vinny instead of a legitimately qualified GM. So I’m not sure the examples we gain from them are worthy of deriving anything. Yeah, I totally buy that, as well. One of my favorite aspects of the hire is just how respected and classy Rivera is. That doesn’t really mean much in terms of automatically winning, as we’ve seen he’s just as susceptible to losing seasons as most coaches are, but that is especially important at Redskins Park. Yeah, I think it’s a fascinating conversation and one I’ve thoroughly enjoyed. It’s just sad we even have to think like this, but alas, we are where we are. And I’m all for hoping for the best. I don’t know if I can stomach witnessing another villain’s origin story.
  23. Yeah, I mean, you’re arguing yourself here. This is pretty much what I was getting at. Maybe you’re so used to disagreeing with me you forgot what it looks like otherwise. Final say doesn’t negate collaborating. A big part of why someone like Grant gets as much playing time as he did is because of a failure to bring in better players, as you said here. Which means that, actually, the final say aspect of it had less to do with it than the fact that the FO didn’t do a better job managing resources and building the team. In fact, the coach wasn’t wrong and “his guy” was the better option. So, it feels like you’re saying exactly what I am here but kind of arguing at the same time!? Well, you kind of went into it in the first portion of your post and almost forced me to, as well. But I think if anyone reads closely here they’ll see that, now, you’re saying things that align more with my thinking on this for years than anything you’ve said on it before. To be frank, this entire conversation has been refreshing to me because we’re getting into the organizational aspects of everything that usually was downplayed, dismissed or totally ignored before. I’m seeing things being said and focused on that are a major change. I hope it remains so. Yes... not sure why this was said, that’s pretty much what I was saying. Is there something you think you were arguing against or you were just reiterating? Ok, I’m confused. You say the above which is exactly what I’m saying, but I think you’re conflating final say with a lack of collaboration. That’s not what final say means. I’ve explained this on multiple occasions. Final say is about one person being able to take into account all the information they’re getting from their peers and subordinates and making a decision from there. Sure, someone is likely to get “ticked off”, but they still have to respect that authority and understand why that guy has final say over them in the first place (which, if you’re hiring wrong in the first place or setting up roles that don’t align properly, can be the problem itself). So people getting ticked off for not getting their way works both ways. GM can get ticked off if the coach isn’t developing players he believes in, coach can get ticked off if he’s being handed players he can’t develop, etc... Yes, exactly. See what I mean by how it comes off like you’re arguing against yourself? I don’t know if you’re quoting me to just add or reiterate what I was saying, or to debate it. I can’t tell, but if it’s the former my apologies. If it’s the latter I’m thoroughly confused and you should’ve been saying “yeah, I agree” instead of starting it off with stuff like “good in theory, but not practical”, only to say what I was in the end. Or do you think I was suggesting anything else? Structure matters, the people matter more. You need the structure to be aligned well and you need a good hiring process that finds the right people to fulfill those roles properly within said structure. It works both ways, hence, why it’s ok to have the GM with final say over the 90, draft and FA, but the coach have final say over the 53, or active 46, during the season. That could mean the same thing, by the way, and often does. If you have control over the active 46, you have control over who plays and the depth chart, you essentially have control over the 53 during the season. That final say is still regarding everyone the GM brought in or retained himself. But, like I already said, I do prefer it the other way. I just like the experts being in charge of their particular expertise. But I see the positives of doing it this way, too. Which you’re reiterating here when saying that it comes down to how the people work together. I’d argue the same. And I have for years. It’s all important. It’s vital for someone qualified with legitimate personnel chops to have final say over the roster. All this other stuff is minor in comparison to that. The collaborative and open communication stuff is vital no matter how it’s structured. The GM who has final say doesn’t and can’t mean he is avoiding the need to work with everyone unless he’s an idiot. I think Ron seems to understand he needs that set up, but I was disheartened by the presser because it seemed to have went against that. Maybe I misunderstood and that’s how it gets structured in the end, anyway, and all they meant by “coach-centric” was that Ron would lead the way initially and with the hires, but wouldn’t retain final say over everything once it was all set up. I keep going back to wondering what’s the difference? If the owner is like that, wouldn’t he be doing the same thing but, instead of with the GM who everyone owes their job to, it’d be with the coach? To me, the bottom line is that the owner needs to be smart and be able to discern the truth. I don’t think that has much of anything to do with the structure. I think they’re two separate issues. Pats and Seahawks remain the only examples of sustainable success with a coach who is also the top exec. The Pats are the exception to the exception because of Brady. The Seahawks also have automatic benefits that elevate everyone there just by default, like their home field advantage for instance. But Schnieder is rightly recognized as the architect of that team, so one can argue it’s an empty phrase when saying Carroll has “final say”. So I get where you’re coming from and I think there’s something to it. If an owner has the habit of undermining his coaches but not his executives, making his coach the top executive can be a way to stop it. I just think that’s really a criticism of the owner and a damn shame if that’s the only way he can attempt to control himself, lol. It just means we’re stuck having to follow a model with more examples of failure than sustainable success compared to the other models.
  24. I’m pretty much in agreement here, but I can’t help but think about the fact that, virtually every single draft, there are QBs who are highly regarded, yet come out with enough issues that it’s almost a consensus that they won’t go 1st or 2nd or top 5 or top 10. And then, somehow, as the months go by and teams start meeting with these guys, falling in love with their potential, and the analysts/journalists start hearing things, what do you know? Suddenly, they’re consistently mocked to go in the top 2 or top 5 or top 10 at worst. Then one of those teams that fell in love and just HAS to have their guy trades up to get him. I feel like it pans out that way pretty much every time. I’ve always found that to be fascinating. It might not even be Tua. What if it’s Herbert, Love, or Fromm? As crazy as it seems now, I wouldn’t be surprised. It almost feels inevitable.