Why are we this bad on the field?

[skinny21]

12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Thanks, that's cool.  Hey I enjoy @volsmet on the draft thread as much as anyone -- lots of detail, great football conversation.  Speaking of which, I wonder where the dude is, i think it's been awhile unless I missed some posts. 😀   One of the upsides of this season going south is the draft thread should be even more fun that usual. 

 

 

Of course, and yeah, I definitely appreciate (and miss) volsmet’s posting.  I think he’s on (self imposed?) hiatus because of a spat.  We’re all poorer for it.  ☹️

 

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I get the democracy idea and how everyone weighs in so what can hurt about that?  The problem with it among other things IMO is it really never works out in a pure democracy way but instead brings major politics into it.  If you shoot someone's idea down on one thing -- you typically have to make up for it on something else.  So it starts becoming political and you barter.  Also, you can't really easily have a committee type of situation where the same voices get drowned out all the time.  For example if let's say Kyle is the brightest personnel guy there -- its hard to make it the Kyle Smith show in a committee set up where he prevails just about always because it would bruise egos.  I've been through these type of situations in my own work -- granted its different from sports but its the same principle of using committees to make calls. 

 

You know we always go back and forth on this and from my point of view, its somewhat of a democracy but just like in the draft thread it becomes more about proving your point of view. So if (1) the player is really good and (2) Kyle or whoever is doing the convincing can actually argue him over other prospects. Its a bit different in sports from what I do, but generally my team gets a problem and there are a few ways to approach it. And they've got to convince me or the team lead on which way to go forward. 1) I've got to be convinced that they way they choose will work, and 2) I've go to understand the time investment in their approach vs other approaches. So it becomes somewhat like the advertising campaigns we see in movies, but math based. And I'd think that its similar for a front office - even when its not a "democracy". As the scout who went and watched SEC football, you've got to convince the GM, team president or head coach that the player you watched (that they don't know about) is worth putting on the roster. And that may involve a prelimainry step in convincing other scouts to go into the room with you and say how much you like this player.  

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I believe you need an overarching vision as opposed to multiple chefs in the kitchen and hodgepodge decision making where everybody gets their piece of the action.   And IMO the person is charge needs to be either the best personnel guy in the building or if the dude isn't a personnel guy, he needs to be really really special at what he does.

 

I agree with the first part of this - the overarching vision. I liked Scot talking about the type of players he likes to go after. I liked the comments about building through the draft as opposed to through FA. I liked the drafting of team captains. 

 

But along with that vision is a problem / question of where are we focusing? Are we so focused on the depth on the roster that our 23 - 50 players aren't that much of a dropoff from our 1-22 players, that we don't focus on making 1-22 elite, or at least have some elite talent? Or are we so focused on the 1-22 that we ignore the 23-50? As much as I liked Gibbs, I thought he focused on the draft to build up special teams and draft players who would play horrible if they ever had to see significant time. As much as I liked Casserly as GM (and I used to get into online arguments about who was drafting players - him or Norv), I thought he spent a lot of time drafting good backup players that could play and not be horrible, but not looking for / finding elite talent. 

 

Kyle seems to be different from both of these strategies. He's looking (particularly in later rounds) for guys who slipped because of injury, or small school, but could be elite players, or raw players who our coaches could develop into elite players with some time. Honestly that's why I'm so surprised to see that he wasn't all in on Haskins. Look at guys like Christian, Apke, Moreau, Nicholson, Davis, Holcomb, SDH, Moreland, JHC. There's probably another category for Harmon, Guice and Settle as guys who surprisingly dropped and he picked up. But this has the building blocks of being some stars, but also duds if they're not developed, or if they're injured. But it makes our 53 man roster a lot more impressive, to the point where I'm more excited about Harmon playing than Richardson and want to see SDH more than Bostic and Moreland more than Norman. 

 

So I think it can work and is kinda working here. We're just not seeing the results yet because its early in the program. Look at SF. A year ago people were clowning Lynch as GM because he didn't have the background you desire and they had two really bad losing seasons, but now they're the top team in the NFC. Look at Oakland / Vegas, they've got a HC as the final say with a guy who was on TV doing drafts and they just embarassed the chargers in prime time. Not saying these teams prove my point, just saying that don't be so quick to group these last 3 years with the overall 20+. Not saying Kyle is a superstar at GM but I do see a strategy from him and it has the possibility to work for us. 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

You know we always go back and forth on this and from my point of view, its somewhat of a democracy but just like in the draft thread it becomes more about proving your point of view. So if (1) the player is really good and (2) Kyle or whoever is doing the convincing can actually argue him over other prospects. Its a bit different in sports from what I do, but generally my team gets a problem and there are a few ways to approach it. And they've got to convince me or the team lead on which way to go forward. 1) I've got to be convinced that they way they choose will work, and 2) I've go to understand the time investment in their approach vs other approaches. So it becomes somewhat like the advertising campaigns we see in movies, but math based. And I'd think that its similar for a front office - even when its not a "democracy". As the scout who went and watched SEC football, you've got to convince the GM, team president or head coach that the player you watched (that they don't know about) is worth putting on the roster. And that may involve a prelimainry step in convincing other scouts to go into the room with you and say how much you like this player.  

 

I'd maybe be more inclined to tolerate a democracy like that if I thought everyone in the committee was equally capable but I don't.  I don't think for example Bruce or Dan should have an equal opinion period.  I think it was funny when Vinny more or less admitted in a Sheehan podcast months back, heck yeah Dan weighs in on the drafts and pushes players.  But its on the scouts to convince him he's wrong otherwise he's taking his guy as he should.  Really?  Wow.

 

That's not to me how it should roll.  Bruce and Dan's pedigree isn't scouting/personnel.  They should not IMO have a an equal voice let alone higher voice than Kyle.  

 

I think I am a smart dude in my own sphere.  But when it comes to rewiring the electricity in a building I shouldn't have an equal voice in the method to doing it along with the electrician and other experts in the field. 

 

And to double down on my previous point, I've never seen a committee decision making process where one dude gets what he wants almost all the time.  So whomever is the smartest guy in the building -- that dude has to give in much more than he should.  In other words if we had a Schneider or Ballard type they'd be diluted.  And yeah I don't want someone with Dan's and Bruce's pedigree with their base level of likely fantasy football knowledge of the league diluting a savant type.

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I Look at SF. A year ago people were clowning Lynch as GM because he didn't have the background you desire and they had two really bad losing seasons, but now they're the top team in the NFC. Look at Oakland / Vegas, they've got a HC as the final say with a guy who was on TV doing drafts and they just embarassed the chargers in prime time. Not saying these teams prove my point, just saying that don't be so quick to group these last 3 years with the overall 20+. Not saying Kyle is a superstar at GM but I do see a strategy from him and it has the possibility to work for us. 

 

Lynch was in football.   His background is much closer to what I desire than Bruce.  Yeah a politician-agent to me is far removed from scouting-personnel.  A player especially an X and O's type isn't a mile away from it.  I'd take for example Peyton Manning as some say he's rumored to be interested in a FO position. 

 

Bruce's issues to me go deeper than his background.  I just don't think he's good at his job and he is atrocious IMO at painting the organization in a good light.   I recall from other debates you aren't hung up on scouting background, and I've actually conceded over time that yeah it could be someone outside of scouting if they are special at what they do.  Bruce to me is a mile away from special.