Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Why the Redskins don't need a G.M. - Essay


Recommended Posts

Just to use him as an example' date=' because there are always rumors that he is leaving because he hates Bellichik.

If Scott Pioli suddenly resigned in order to pursue opportunites elsewhere, would anyone recommend that Danny fire up Redskins One and fly to Boston? Or should we continue to give Vinny the loyalty?[/quote']

If you could guarantee that he could get lucky as hell and find the Redskins a Tom Brady-equivalent (regardless of the position), then sure.

Other than that, don't see where he's done anything all that special. Could you tell me about the great moves he has made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could guarantee that he could get lucky as hell and find the Redskins a Tom Brady-equivalent (regardless of the position), then sure.

Other than that, don't see where he's done anything all that special. Could you tell me about the great moves he has made?

I don't know the ins and outs of the Pats organization, but I would say signing Rodney Harrison was a good move, as was the trade for Corey Dillon. Cutting Lawyer Malloy turned out fine, as well as Ty Law. The fact that they won the superbowl that one year with their starting secondary on the bench much of the year tells me that the man has an eye for talent.

I am afraid that's what separates Pioli from Vinny, the depth issue. Vinny seems particularly adroit at converting first round picks into key contributing players. However, when it comes to depth, we tend to have problems. The O-line last year against Seattle for example. If we had a solid number 3 guard to plug in behind Dock and Thomas, who knows what could have happened. Pioli seems to be able to continually convert laster round draft picks into at the very least serviceable players. Not every 6th rounder is going to be Tom Brady. I understand that. But picking up someone who fill a whole when called upon to do so b/c of injuries wouldn't seem to be too much of stretch, for a personnel man, or whatever you want to call him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys.

There are 2 issues here.

First is the same tedious "Vinny Sucks!" angle that has been discussed (and dismissed) at least a hundred times on this board. At this point the only aspect of this line of the discussion of any real interest is whether or not any of the unapologetic armchair GM types, who talk a big game and apprarently really and truly believe they have a clue about this stuff, are willing to take up the challenge of speaking knowledgeably (meaning, not "it's obvious") about Vinny's actual role in the acquisition of even ONE player during his time in DC.

I want even ONE person to step up and actually try it. Just one. Come on you guys, you're willing to spend HOURS tearing Vinny up from the safety of your home PC's. Someone step up and point to ONE guy you KNOW was "a Vinny pick" or "a Vinny trade" and explain how it was a bad pick when it was made.

The second thing is what the thread started out to be---making a case why Vinny should stay. Many of you insist you know why he should not, but refuse to even pretend to make any stronger a case than "Vinny Sucks!" And you keep making it over. Except of course when calling anyone who sees a bit deeper than the kiddle pool you're wading in and patiently explains that there is more to life than that, in which case you predictably and cleverly label them "Vinny lovers."

You're trying to make a case why Vinny does in fact "Suck!" and thus should be fired now. You have no actual evidence beyond "Vinny Sucks!" But you keep saying in different ways hoping no one will notice it's really the only ammo you got. We'll we've noticed. It's a blank, fellas. The case remains to be made, and no one here is coming close to making it. Keep telling yourselved you are if you wish, but ain't nobody buyin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second thing is what the thread started out to be---making a case why Vinny should stay. Many of you insist you know why he should not, but refuse to even pretend to make any stronger a case than "Vinny Sucks!" And you keep making it over. Except of course when calling anyone who sees a bit deeper than the kiddle pool you're wading in and patiently explains that there is more to life than that, in which case you predictably and cleverly label them "Vinny lovers."

You're trying to make a case why Vinny does in fact "Suck!" and thus should be fired now. You have no actual evidence beyond "Vinny Sucks!" But you keep saying in different ways hoping no one will notice it's really the only ammo you got. We'll we've noticed. It's a blank, fellas. The case remains to be made, and no one here is coming close to making it. Keep telling yourselved you are if you wish, but ain't nobody buyin'.

Taylor Jacobs? Rashad Bauman? Cliff Russell? Lloyd Harrison? Michael Moore? Quincy Sanders? Jared Newberry? Not to mention the 6th and 7th rounders. Not exactly an exemplary record, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor Jacobs? Rashad Bauman? Cliff Russell? Lloyd Harrison? Michael Moore? Quincy Sanders? Jared Newberry? Not to mention the 6th and 7th rounders. Not exactly an exemplary record, eh?

You didn't read the whole question, goal. Didn't your teachers ever get on you about that?

Those are just names. Now tell us exactly what Vinny's role was in the acquisition of any one of them. Was it "his" pick, or a coach's? Did he fight for the pick, or against it? Was it a unanimous group decision, or one that had to be "decided" by the tiebreaking vote? Were they going BPA at the time the pick was made, or were they trying to fill a specific need at a position?

And don't forget the extra credit part: what was the coaching staff situation at the time, at what point along the road of the latest roster overhaul were they?

Just looking for a little context here. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor Jacobs? Rashad Bauman? Cliff Russell? Lloyd Harrison? Michael Moore? Quincy Sanders? Jared Newberry? Not to mention the 6th and 7th rounders. Not exactly an exemplary record, eh?

Ooh, look! I can name some names too!

Lavar Arrington, Chris Samuels, Patrick Ramsey, Ladell Betts, Robert Royal, Rock Cartwright, Sean Taylor, Chris Cooley, Carlos Rogers.

I don't know what it proves, but I can create a list of names as well.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for starters,( and as an example), there were reports out of the WP and the Times I believe that stated that Vinnie was a proponent of Mike Doss, and S.S. was in favor of drafting Jacobs, ( go figure). Redskins drafted Jacobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys make this enormous leap of faith -- that because Joe hasn't fired Vinny, Vinny is doing a "hell of a job."

Which is only slightly less enormous than some alternative leaps of faith -- that despite the public praise Vinny has received from Gibbs and Williams, certain people on this board know different, or (even more speculatively) that Gibbs wants to keep a "useful boob" around.

As has been made painfully obvious by Om's astute question and the resounding silence that follows, no one here can speak "knowledgeably (meaning, not 'it's obvious') about Vinny's actual role in the acquisition of even ONE player during his time in DC." The FACT of the matter is that the persons who know best what sort of job Vinny is doing are, you guessed it, Joe Gibbs and Greg Williams. Given that these two people have given every indication that they are pleased as punch with the job Vinny is doing and no indication whatsoever that they are unhappy with Vinny's work, the only reasonable assumption to make is that Vinny is in fact doing a good job. Is some faith required to believe this? Sure. We can't really know for sure. But it is undeniably clear that it would take a much bigger leap of faith to believe anything else.

The role that Vinny is currently playing in the organization is spelled out in some detail in an earlier post by Om. Contrary to what was posted, many people here want to assert that Vinny is somehow running the club or making final decisions about player personnel. The only real evidence I've seen yet on what role Vinny actually plays in player aquisitions was spelled out in that article. Does it take a little faith to trust that the article is accurate. Sure. We can't really know for sure. But it is undeniably clear that it would take a much bigger leap of faith to believe anything else.

So, unless you've got some inside information on Vinny's role and what Gibbs and Williams REALLY think about him, (Note: Speculation isn't the same thing as information.) it is difficult for me to fathom why someone would make such unreasonable leaps of faith to reach conclusions that are not in evidence. It almost makes me wonder whether some Vinny-hating emotions might not be clouding your judgement. Hey, I suffered through the bad years too, so I can understand the desire for a scapegoat. Doesn't make it reasonable though.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pioli is not a GM and does not have final say in New England. They run their front office roughly the same. It would just be an upgrade, not an overall change.

I'm not wholly convinced that Pioli would be an upgrade. Fact is, there's just too much we don't know.

What we don't know: Whether or not Vinny was jumping up and down and screaming that we should take Ben Rothlisberger over Sean Taylor with our first round pick in 2004. Neither can we say what his position was on any similar scenario in any draft, aquisition, or trade.

Who knows these things? Well, for the last three years, at least, Gibbs and Williams know.

What we do know: Over the past three years, Vinny Cerrato, working with the Redskins' scouts, has been able to get the right information on free agents and draft picks into the decision-makers hands so that we've had an unbelievably good run at building a successful team.

Based on all available evidence, Gibbs and Williams think Vinny is doing a fantastic job.

None of that is to say that Pioli wouldn't be an upgrade. Maybe he would. Maybe he'd give us stellar improvement at the position. I don't know. And I've got a really, really strong suspicion that you don't either. (That "you" isn't aimed at anyone in particular.) In fact, Gibbs might not even know whether Pioli would be an upgrade or not. If Pioli were to become available, I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Gibbs stick with what he knows is working (again, based on all available evidence): Vinny Cerrato.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't read the whole question, goal. Didn't your teachers ever get on you about that?

Those are just names. Now tell us exactly what Vinny's role was in the acquisition of any one of them. Was it "his" pick, or a coach's? Did he fight for the pick, or against it? Was it a unanimous group decision, or one that had to be "decided" by the tiebreaking vote? Were they going BPA at the time the pick was made, or were they trying to fill a specific need at a position?

And don't forget the extra credit part: what was the coaching staff situation at the time, at what point along the road of the latest roster overhaul were they?

Just looking for a little context here. :)

I was class clown, my friend.

Of course we have no idea who decided what, who had final say, etc. Never will know. Having said that, with the available information, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say that Vinny hasn't exactly set the world on fire. Consider the evidence that has been presented before: Vinny & Norv failure; Vinny & Steve-o - failure; Vinny & Gibbs - success. By defending Vinny so much, you all are actually knocking Gibbs a little, imo. Madds statement several pages ago about having an owner with unlimited pockets and a HOF coach succeeding with any boob seem applicable at this point. Is Gibbs winning b/c of Vinny or in spite of him?

Back to your question, Om. Of course we don't know who Vinny drafted and who Norv or Steve-o drafted. But you have to figure of that list I gave you, are you saying that Vinny had no input at all into those selections? On any level? If that's what you're saying, what the hell do they pay him for? I would guess (that's right, a guess) that Vinny had fairly substantial input into those selections, perhaps including even the final say. And Longshot, with the exception of Royal and Cartwright, I don't remember seeing anything other than 1st rounders on that list. As I have stated before, Vinny (or whomever) seems to have a good eye for the first round. I don't have too much to say about that. As stated the before, the depth, or lack thereof, that concerns me.

To sum up, I have no idea how much Vinny influenced the draft choices I mentioned, or the one's Jason listed out. No clue. But if he had little or no say, as several of you want to believe, why the hell are we paying him a salary? Damn, man, I could do that. I will even quit my job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Gibbs winning b/c of Vinny or in spite of him?

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? (I know the site is called extremeskins, but it's just a name. :) )

Did the Steelers win the Super Bowl because of Willie Parker, or in spite of him? I say neither. Parker is a perfectly functional part of a successful team. Same for Vinny. Are there better running backs than Parker? Absolutely. Are the Steelers looking real hard to replace him? Doubt it (though they might be looking hard to replace Bettis for short yardage situation). Why? Because Parker is a perfectly functional part of a successful team and you don't mess with success. Despite what Madd has said about always looking to improve the team, the reality is that making changes to something that is successful is a tricky endeavor. I highly doubt you'll see the Steelers doing it. Nor the Redskins FO.

But you have to figure of that list I gave you, are you saying that Vinny had no input at all into those selections? On any level? If that's what you're saying, what the hell do they pay him for? I would guess (that's right, a guess) that Vinny had fairly substantial input into those selections, perhaps including even the final say.

The article that Om posted earlier spells out what sort of input and on what levels Vinny Cerrato currently has in player acquisitions. According to it, your guess goes against the available evidence. Of course, it could very well be that Vinny's role has changed in the past three years. It could be that Gibbs and Vinny have figured out how to best utilize Vinny's talents. All of this is just more guessing. What we do know, however, is that Gibbs and Williams, based on all available evidence, believe that Vinny is doing a good job in his current role. That's what they are paying him for.

But if he had little or no say, as several of you want to believe, why the hell are we paying him a salary?

Again, the article Om posted says this a lot better than I can, but, based on all available evidence, they are not paying Vinny to "run the club" or to make final decisions on player personnel. Instead, they are paying him to gather all the information he can on all the different players that are available in the draft or in free agency and to organize and consolidate this information so that the decision-makers together can come to consensus on who will best benefit the team.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly think we should hang the Ramsey selection on Vinny. I mean, we know Spurrier had little or no input on that pick. It's not clear to me the Spurrier was even in the "war room" that day.

History tells us that Ramsey was "Danny's pick," which is convenient, I guess. But the fact that Vinny could sit in a room as the draft expert and could not convince his owner to maybe - just maybe - get the brand new offensive genius' input on the QB of the future is staggering to me.

What this thread has taught me is this: Vinny has been here for something like seven years. He has worked with three coaches. 90 percent of his tenure has been marked by failure. The only success has been when he was paired with one of the five greatest coaches of all time.

Moreover, no one seems to know what the guy does. There is not one single, "Hey...look at how smart he was" moment.

It's an interesting legacy for someone in a high profile position.

Maybe he should be the next interview so we can figure out exactly what he does. Here are my questions:

What are your job responsibilites? What is your role in the decision making process in free agency? What is your role in the decision making process in the draft? In which area do you have more input? Can you name a draft pick that you pushed for that you are particularly proud of? Is there any pick that you wish you could do over? Why do you think the Skins have been such a failure on day two of the draft over the last six or seven years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? (I know the site is called extremeskins, but it's just a name. :) )

Did the Steelers win the Super Bowl because of Willie Parker, or in spite of him? I say neither. Parker is a perfectly functional part of a successful team. Same for Vinny. Are there better running backs than Parker? Absolutely. Are the Steelers looking real hard to replace him? Doubt it (though they might be looking hard to replace Bettis for short yardage situation). Why? Because Parker is a perfectly functional part of a successful team and you don't mess with success. Despite what Madd has said about always looking to improve the team, the reality is that making changes to something that is successful is a tricky endeavor. I highly doubt you'll see the Steelers doing it. Nor the Redskins FO.

The Steelers were in negotiations during the draft to trade with Atlanta for TJ Duckett.

The article that Om posted earlier spells out what sort of input and on what levels Vinny Cerrato currently has in player acquisitions. According to it, your guess goes against the available evidence. Of course, it could very well be that Vinny's role has changed in the past three years. It could be that Gibbs and Vinny have figured out how to best utilize Vinny's talents. All of this is just more guessing. What we do know, however, is that Gibbs and Williams, based on all available evidence, believe that Vinny is doing a good job in his current role. That's what they are paying him for.

What are his talents? And what is his role?

Again, the article Om posted says this a lot better than I can, but, based on all available evidence, they are not paying Vinny to "run the club" or to make final decisions on player personnel. Instead, they are paying him to gather all the information he can on all the different players that are available in the draft or in free agency and to organize and consolidate this information so that the decision-makers together can come to consensus on who will best benefit the team.

How hard it is to say, hey Randle El and Lloyd are the two best receivers on the market not named Terrel Owens? I knew that.

And the drafts stink. So, Vinny is a failure with at least half of his job responsibilites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up, I have no idea how much Vinny influenced the draft choices I mentioned, or the one's Jason listed out. No clue. But if he had little or no say, as several of you want to believe, why the hell are we paying him a salary? Damn, man, I could do that. I will even quit my job.

This is what I don't understand. You recognize we have no real way of knowing if perceived any "bad" picks were "his" or not ... yet here we are, carrying on for page after page discussing why, based on "his" perceived "bad" picks, the team should forget the fact things are working beautifully right now and can the man anyway. I'm no math whiz, but these two things simply don't add up.

As to the "if he had little or no say" part is just argumentative. Of course he has had some say, in both the "bad" stuff AND the "good" stuff. We just don't know exactly what, or where, it was. Or anything about the context therein. To simply suggest it must therefore be nothing at all, and not worth a salary, is kinda silly. To ALSO then suggest that since you don't know what it was, and from that deduce that it's nothing, and from THAT deduce that you could probably do it too, well ... I think you know how I feel about that already so I won't drag this out. It's painful enough already. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I knew I forgot something. Phin, the arguement that he must be doing a good job b/c they haven't dismissed him is bogus as well. For example, hypothetical here, I have a sales staff for my magazine. Let's say one of my salesmen is doing all right. Not great, but all right. Average, you might say. I would like to replace him, but as yet, have not found a suitable improvement. There just isn't anyone who has responded to inquiries or ads that I think will do a better job. The fact that I will not replace this salesperson does not mean he is doing a good job, it just means I can't find anyone to take his place.

The example above is silly of course, b/c there are a million and one salesmen around that I could hire, and as such, I have neevr had problems. However, imagine for a second the world of personnel men. How many qualified people are there? How about how many who might be willing to work for Dan Snyder, given his bad press, and poor relationships with NFL owners? I do not know at all how many that is, but I'm willing to bet Gibbs & Co. haven't had an over-abundance of candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I don't understand. You recognize we have no real way of knowing if perceived any "bad" picks were "his" or not ... yet here we are, carrying on for page after page discussing why, based on "his" perceived "bad" picks, the team should forget the fact things are working beautifully right now and can the man anyway. I'm no math whiz, but these two things simply don't add up.

As to the "if he had little or no say" part is just argumentative. Of course he has had some say, in both the "bad" stuff AND the "good" stuff. We just don't know exactly what, or where, it was. Or anything about the context therein. To simply suggest it must therefore be nothing at all, and not worth a salary, is kinda silly. To ALSO then suggest that since you don't know what it was, and from that deduce that it's nothing, and from THAT deduce that you could probably do it too, well ... I think you know how I feel about that already so I won't drag this out. It's painful enough already. :)

All righty then, let me turn it around. Give me evidence of something Vinny has done well. Show me what he has suceeded at, where has he hit the ball well, consistently? I'm not talking about one or two good things, but a consistent stretch?

Now, allow me to qualify. The way I'm reading your posts (and others) is that we can't really count the pre-Gibbs years, b/c we don't know what his role was. So I'm saying we still don't know how much influence he has now, so you can't count the Gibbs year. Show me something definitively great that Vinny has done - and then show me consistency.

And I'm not saying I could do his job, not at all. I was just pointing out that if his job is as nebulous and non-defineable as you all seem to say it is, then, well, what are we paying him for? And, more importantly, why do you give him so much credit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince, you're embarrassing yourself now.

We've talked to Cerrato..

We've talked to Karl Swanson.

We've talked to Dan Snyder.

We've heard from both Gibbs and Williams about how the process works and about how Cerrato is doing.

Where have you been?

What can I say, we tried. Apparently some people are allergic to links because if they had read them this discussion would be over already. The logic presented in this thread is puzzling at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly think we should hang the Ramsey selection on Vinny. I mean' date=' we know Spurrier had little or no input on that pick. It's not clear to me the Spurrier was even in the "war room" that day.

History tells us that Ramsey was "Danny's pick," which is convenient, I guess. But the fact that Vinny could sit in a room as the draft expert and could not convince his owner to maybe - just maybe - get the brand new offensive genius' input on the QB of the future is staggering to me. [/quote']

I'm sure Vinny was very much involved with the pick of Ramsey, considering that it was his department that scouted him. And, at the time, it was a very good pick for us. We traded down a couple of times, and ended up with a QB, something we desperately needed at that point.

Now, if you want to talk about the success of failure of Ramsey, it seems pretty obvious that a lot of it hangs on Spurrier, who never taught Ramsey how to be an NFL QB, never gave him the protection he deserved, and may have ruined his career. Hard to hang that on Vinny.

What this thread has taught me is this: Vinny has been here for something like seven years. He has worked with three coaches. 90 percent of his tenure has been marked by failure. The only success has been when he was paired with one of the five greatest coaches of all time.

Course, the fact that Norv and Spurrier weren't very good head coaches have nothing to do with it? Aren't we going in circles again?

Moreover, no one seems to know what the guy does. There is not one single, "Hey...look at how smart he was" moment.

It's an interesting legacy for someone in a high profile position.

Except he isn't in a high profile position. How often do you see Vinny in front of the media, even before Gibbs got here? Not often.

As for what he does, read his interview on this site. It is very informative. Maybe you can learn something from it.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All righty then, let me turn it around. Give me evidence of something Vinny has done well. Show me what he has suceeded at, where has he hit the ball well, consistently? I'm not talking about one or two good things, but a consistent stretch?

Now, allow me to qualify. The way I'm reading your posts (and others) is that we can't really count the pre-Gibbs years, b/c we don't know what his role was. So I'm saying we still don't know how much influence he has now, so you can't count the Gibbs year. Show me something definitively great that Vinny has done - and then show me consistency.

And I'm not saying I could do his job, not at all. I was just pointing out that if his job is as nebulous and non-defineable as you all seem to say it is, then, well, what are we paying him for? And, more importantly, why do you give him so much credit?

Come one man, read the interviews. They spell out exactly what Vinny's role is with the team now. He's said that his primary job is to gather, organize and supply the staff with as much information on as many players as possible that fit the organization's profile (whether that be in the draft of FA). He's not even in a decision making a role and we don't know whether or not he was before Gibbs. There's no evidence whatsoever that implys that Vinny has ever been the one making the personnel decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All righty then, let me turn it around. Give me evidence of something Vinny has done well. Show me what he has suceeded at, where has he hit the ball well, consistently? I'm not talking about one or two good things, but a consistent stretch?

Now, allow me to qualify. The way I'm reading your posts (and others) is that we can't really count the pre-Gibbs years, b/c we don't know what his role was. So I'm saying we still don't know how much influence he has now, so you can't count the Gibbs year. Show me something definitively great that Vinny has done - and then show me consistency.

I can’t, brother, that’s the whole point of that exercise. Haven’t we covered that? :)

I keep trying to get this across but apparently failing. But if at first (and second, and third ...) you don’t succeed:

For purposes of this discussion, I don’t NEED to prove why he should stay. The man has the job now, and by all appearances and based on any actual evidence we DO have, is doing it very well indeed. The burden isn’t on those saying he should remain; all they have to do is point to the success on the field and a roster that few if any here would argue is anything but looking pretty damn good going forward. The burden of proof is on those who want to make the case as to why he should NOT remain, despite what all the people at the Park keep saying, as well as the success the team is enjoying with his assistance.

And I'm not saying I could do his job, not at all. I was just pointing out that if his job is as nebulous and non-defineable as you all seem to say it is, then, well, what are we paying him for? And, more importantly, why do you give him so much credit?

Asked and answered many times, brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All righty then, let me turn it around. Give me evidence of something Vinny has done well. Show me what he has suceeded at, where has he hit the ball well, consistently? I'm not talking about one or two good things, but a consistent stretch?

Kinda hard to do when the organization in general is a model of inconsistancy.

Gibbs presence is probably the first signs of consistancy that we've had since Norv/Casserly.

Now, allow me to qualify. The way I'm reading your posts (and others) is that we can't really count the pre-Gibbs years, b/c we don't know what his role was.

No, we know what is role was (hint: same as it is now), but we don't know about individual decisions along the way. As I said, Ceratto doesn't talk much to the media.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why it's embarrassing that I missed an interview. And having now read the interview, I still don't know what Vinny Cerrato does for a living.

I found this interesting though:

Like I said before, we sit down as a whole group and grade these players. On our draft card on our top guys there are probably six grades (from different personnel people or coaches) so it's all cumulative when we talk about these players. When we sit in a room and we write a Redskin report, I'm filling out the report as we're talking through the guy about his strengths and his weaknesses.

What I do is I go to the coordinator or the head coach (and ask) in my summary on the report, "How does this guy fit into our team? What does he do for us?" Then we will rank the player. It is not any one person's list.

I'm not a yes man for the owner. What my job is, is to basically have everything organized to make it easy for everybody to have the right names, to make sure that everybody gets a say so on everybody that we talk about.

Couldn't an intern do this? In the legal world, this is what law clerks are for.

Maybe I've mis-judged him. I actually though Vinny had a job of some importance.

After reading this interview, I've changed my entire argument. Vinny can keep his job.

Now, can we go and hire a real draft guru since we still stink in that area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't an intern do this? In the legal world' date=' this is what law clerks are for.

Maybe I've mis-judged him. I actually though Vinny had a job of some importance.

After reading this interview, I've changed my entire argument. Vinny can keep his job.

Now, can we go and hire a real draft guru since we still stink in that area?[/quote']

Not a bad point, and more or les what I've been saying all along. Why people are so opposed to bringing in someone with a defineable skill set that might help the organization is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...