Voice_of_Reason

The Philosophy Thread: HC First, GM/FO First, or does it matter?

What is your Philosophy?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you prefer

    • HC Centric Approach is better. Give the HC the power to choose the FO
    • GM/FO Centric Approach is better. The FO should be in place first and choose the coach
    • It Doesn't Matter


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

That’s really what I’ve prided myself on here as a poster. I try my best to introduce that nuance and layered-thinking into the discussion... which often gets me in trouble with length, but hey, that’s how it goes. :) 

 

It's also why I enjoy your posts.

 

Agreed on the other way, too. I think people here know me well enough to know the second I smell a rat I'll not only set a mouse trap with strategically placed cheese on it, but I'll take a flame thrower to the trap once the rat is caught.

 

So far so good. That could change in 5 minutes :ols:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of good conversation here.  

 

@thesubmittedone I agree, it's extremely clear, even on the Chief's website, that the GM, President and HC all report to Clark Hunt.  Notably, unless I'm mistaken, Hunt is the owner and CEO.

 

Personally, I LOVE this structure, because (and I think that @thesubmittedone and I agree on this, unless I'm misreading his posts) I don't like people evaluating themselves.  Some top executive evaluates the personnel, the coaching, and in this case the business side of the organization.  Everybody stays in their lane, the expectation is they all work together.  

 

I have never liked the person responsible for picking the players also responsible for evaluating the coach, because you can scapegoat the coach claiming you gave them good players and they just couldn't coach.  

 

Also, I prefer not to have the HC responsible for the personnel, because of exactly the same thing in reverse. The HC can then scapegoat the GM saying they assembled a poor roster when it was actually bad coaching.  

 

However.  I think what we're going to have here is Ron is the final decision maker.  I think Ron is going to have final say, but the GM will be given a lot of autonomy to pick the roster, and they'll work together to make decisions.  Is this ideal?  No. But absent a top executive to sit over both the GM and the HC, it seems most likely.

 

In the world where you don't have a top executive, CEO or President, who has the GM and HC working for him, I honestly don't care who works for who, as long as somebody works for somebody the person with the power was hired first, and one of the two has final say so there is accountability.

 

If Dan declared himself CEO and Chairman like Hunt did, there would be a revolt.  So, at least by title, it's not Dan.  Granted, everybody works for Dan because Dan owns the team.  

 

So assuming there isn't another top exec hired, the GM is going to work for the coach. Now, I also think that Ron will essentially delegate a lot of the player personnel decisions to the GM, and he sees it as a team, so I don't think Ron is going to walk up to the board on draft day and pick a guy he likes over the staff and say, "this is our pick." 

 

I absolutely guarantee you there will never be a release saying that the GM works for Dan.  Even though it's true, I think they're going to either say "it's collaborative" or that Ron has the final vote.  

 

The "it's collaborative" thing is what drives me completely nuts.  Being "collaborative" is great, but SOMEBODY has to have the final decision or else you have nobody to hold accountable.  And accountability is important.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know hiring a GM after the draft is all the rage but it still seems dumb to me.

 

He is going to show up, and most of the work for this year (assemble the team) will have been done for him. By his subordinates or others that are shown the door. If you don't need a GM for the draft I question their overall need.

Edited by RandyHolt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

A lot of good conversation here.  


Indeed. 👍

 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

@thesubmittedone I agree, it's extremely clear, even on the Chief's website, that the GM, President and HC all report to Clark Hunt.  Notably, unless I'm mistaken, Hunt is the owner and CEO.


Yeah, I was getting a bit frustrated about that. I’ve always understood it as such, and many have recognized Reid’s resurgence with the Chiefs as being largely due to him operating in a more traditional Head Coaching role where he’s not doing it all. So to see Dan and Ron point to that as one example of a “coach-centric” model, and then it trickle down within the fanbase, was immensely frustrating. 
 

It’s not. Never was. Reid stays in his coaching lane with quality people in supporting roles relative to their expertise and that has helped him immensely. And, yes, of course it’s collaborative. That doesn’t change what authority and span of control is given (final say) to those roles. 
 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Personally, I LOVE this structure, because (and I think that @thesubmittedone and I agree on this, unless I'm misreading his posts) I don't like people evaluating themselves.  Some top executive evaluates the personnel, the coaching, and in this case the business side of the organization.  Everybody stays in their lane, the expectation is they all work together.  


Agreed, it’s my preference, and why I was actually really happy when we had that structure with Allen, McCloughan and Gruden. When Jay was first hired, I hated the idea that Bruce was running the show since:

 

1) I never viewed him as qualified enough to have final say over player personnel, and;

 

2) I recognized he was brought in to be a healthy barrier between Snyder and Mike, but ultimately failed at that one job miserably considering the PR war they got involved in, the way he usurped and consolidated his power, and then rewarded those who participated in that atmosphere of divisions/factions (Haslett, Scott Campbell). 

 

I was sure Jay‘s tenure would just end up in yet another failure walking into that set up. 
 

So when they made that change after the first year, I was ecstatic. 
 

I was skeptical about Dan/Allen messing it up, of course, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt initially. I was also worried about McCloughan’s past, but I had said that the structure was most important to me and as long as they maintained it, even if he failed and had to be let go, we’d be ok. 
 

Alas, that’s not how it went down. And that was my biggest turning point in terms of placing any hope in the team so long as Dan had Allen as his top executive.
 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I have never liked the person responsible for picking the players also responsible for evaluating the coach, because you can scapegoat the coach claiming you gave them good players and they just couldn't coach.  

 

Also, I prefer not to have the HC responsible for the personnel, because of exactly the same thing in reverse. The HC can then scapegoat the GM saying they assembled a poor roster when it was actually bad coaching.  


I differ here slightly.
 

It’s not my top preference, but I don’t mind the GM model who is essentially the top executive while also being in charge of player personnel, because I place resource management higher than coaching on the scale of achieving sustainable success in the NFL. I know you claim to believe it’s 50/50 between the two, though I struggle to accept that claim based on your posting history (I think you lean way too heavily on coaching and downplay the significance of resource management/player acquisition/roster construction), but I won’t get into that here. 
 

As for the preference of not having the HC responsible for player personnel, I totally agree there. No doubt about it. 
 

For me, it’s not just about scapegoating, which is a big part of it, but it’s about time management, organizational support, and placing people in roles relative to their expertise. 
 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

However.  I think what we're going to have here is Ron is the final decision maker.  I think Ron is going to have final say, but the GM will be given a lot of autonomy to pick the roster, and they'll work together to make decisions.  Is this ideal?  No. But absent a top executive to sit over both the GM and the HC, it seems most likely.

 

In the world where you don't have a top executive, CEO or President, who has the GM and HC working for him, I honestly don't care who works for who, as long as somebody works for somebody the person with the power was hired first, and one of the two has final say so there is accountability.

 

If Dan declared himself CEO and Chairman like Hunt did, there would be a revolt.  So, at least by title, it's not Dan.  Granted, everybody works for Dan because Dan owns the team.  


Here’s the problem. 
 

Dan, absent giving someone those titles of Chairman and CEO (a bit redundant, anyway, lol), IS going to act in that capacity whether we like it or not. Fan revolt or not, it shouldn’t even matter. He IS the Chairman and CEO unless or until someone else gets those titles. 
 

And even were he to give someone else those titles and delegate those roles to them, he’d still ultimately be above them and would still have to assess the job they’re doing. He’d still have to set it up to where there is a fair timeline and goal they’re supposed to reach within it. He’d still have to have a system of accountability that emanates from himself. 
 

@Lombardi's_kid_brother made a great point in a response to me about Dan essentially needing one guy to be in his ear. And to bring what @KDawg said into it regarding Dan’s “malleability”, I think that is and has been our biggest problem. 
 

The overarching, unifying vision needs to come from the Owner, ultimately. 
 

Dan simply doesn’t have a sound philosophical foundation for building an organization. He’s emotional and reactionary. He needs others to tell him what to do, which wouldn’t be a problem in and of itself, but he chooses wrongly. He doesn’t know how to filter out sound advice from bad advice and, even more, he doesn’t know how to recognize what may be based on biases more than objective truth even when it comes in the form of sound advice. 
 

I know that’s a load... but an example would be Dan just listening to anything Joe Gibbs tells him. Joe can be the greatest coach of all time (and I believe he is), but that wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s a great executive, either. It could also mean that his perception of coaching isn’t the best one to pull advice from because it’s inherently biased towards coaches, he may ignore or downplay his own weaknesses in evaluating talent/roster construction which would mean he’d do the same with others and, maybe even more than any of that, he’s assuming many are on his level in terms of what they can handle when they’re not. 
 

Dan needs to be able to filter through all of these things while listening to others. 
 

I’m not saying that is what is happening here regarding Joe, but what I’m saying is that the biggest factor in all of this is and has been Dan. It will always be Dan.

 

What happens if Ron doesn’t succeed right away? Who will be in Dan’s ear? How quickly will he change based on that “malleability”? 

 

My problem now is that Dan is up there talking about his research and the group of people he’s listened to and is STILL MAKING MISTAKES. 
 

Had he just said the Seahawks and Patriots are the examples of a coach-centric approach, I would’ve been ok with it, in terms of the examples given themselves. He wouldn’t be, at worst, lying or, at best, confused. All of us would’ve then asked if it was smart to model your organization around these two exceptions versus what other successful franchises do that far exceed them in numbers. 
 

But he and Ron both added the Chiefs and Saints’ models. Those are NOT models where the HC is given ultimate power and made to be the top exec. Why are they saying it like it is? Why is Dan acting like this is new for him, by claiming it’s based on the research he’s done, when he’s done it before with Marty, Joe and Mike? 
 

Why did Ron call what Dan told him about his research a “unique” perspective, since it’s “Coach-centric”, but then turn around and point to the Chiefs? 
 

None of this makes much sense.
 

Are they trying to hide just how exceptional this model is? 
 

The only way it does is if they mean something altogether different than what many are assuming is “Coach-centric”. Maybe it has nothing to do with the structure of the organization and they only mean, by that term, that they need to support their coaches better and their coaches are going to be put in a better position to thrive.
 

Which is what I’ve been begging for all along. 
 

So that would mean that, yes, we are going to model it like the Chiefs and that we’ll see someone in that role with final say over player personnel reporting to Dan (or whomever he assigns that position to), and not to Ron. 
 

That is my hope. 
 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So assuming there isn't another top exec hired, the GM is going to work for the coach. Now, I also think that Ron will essentially delegate a lot of the player personnel decisions to the GM, and he sees it as a team, so I don't think Ron is going to walk up to the board on draft day and pick a guy he likes over the staff and say, "this is our pick." 


Which is the problem I had originally stated based on that initial presser. Which you’ve also stated is “not ideal”. I’m glad we’re pretty much on the same page now about it. :) 
 

As for delegating, yes... that’s going to be key if Ron is the top exec, but the problem you’re referring to where they demand to pick a guy is rarely, if ever, the problem. As we’ve already laid out, a lot of it is about who is evaluating whom, inherent biases, time management issues and being overburdened. 
 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I absolutely guarantee you there will never be a release saying that the GM works for Dan.  Even though it's true, I think they're going to either say "it's collaborative" or that Ron has the final vote.  

 

The "it's collaborative" thing is what drives me completely nuts.  Being "collaborative" is great, but SOMEBODY has to have the final decision or else you have nobody to hold accountable.  And accountability is important.

 

I’m a bit confused here. Are you saying the GM will be equal in power to Ron, but they’re just not going to say it? Is that what you’re projecting will happen? 
 

If so, that’d be utterly ridiculous. I guess you’re saying that Dan won’t do that for PR reasons... but, I mean, he’s the owner, lol. We’ve got to face reality. And I think a lot of fans would be happy that the GM is given that power as opposed to just focusing on the aspect of reporting to Dan. 
 

I’m not the type of fan who lives in some alternate reality that believes Dan should not be involved in anything. He’s the owner, he HAS to be. This is why you’ll always see me mentioning “unwarranted interference”. What I mean by that is, sometimes, interference is necessary and warranted (not by force, but to support your hires when they need it), but by and large you have to allow the people you’ve assigned to the roles you’ve created to fulfill them relative to their expertise. 
 

And it’s not just about you interfering yourself, but making sure no one is undermining anyone else in their respective position and that the hierarchy you’ve established isn’t getting corrupted. 
 

 I’m with you about the “collaborative” thing and how someone has to have final say, but again, final say over everything is ultimately the Owner’s. He can delegate that to his top executive, but it’d still be with him in the end since he can fire said top exec at any time. 
 

Outside of the owner, it’s basically a separation of “final say” depending on the titles/roles themselves. That’s what the organization is, essentially. 
 

You want the HC to have final say over his coaching staff and teaching the players since that’s his area of expertise, but the Head Scout/GM to have final say over player personnel since that’s his. Final say here is about what each role, as defined within the organization, is given in terms of authority and span of control. 
 

Unsure if that’s what you’re doing, but we shouldn’t conflate the positives of someone having “final say” and the accountability it brings with the HC being given it as the top executive. The problems remain. 😕 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

He is going to show up, and most of the work for this year (assemble the team) will have been done for him. By his subordinates or others that are shown the door. If you don't need a GM for the draft I question their overall need.


You need one, and pretty much every team has one, but what will happen are guys like Doug, Kyle Smith and Alex Santos will assume some, if not all, of those responsibilities. Ron will probably assume the responsibility of overall resource management (assessing trades or what cap is spent on and where), communicating what positions/skill sets they want to prioritize in pursuing, and will also be in charge of evaluating the jobs Williams, Smith and Santos do.  
 

A lot on his plate that he’s never done before, at least not officially. And you’d rather have one guy focusing on the above who comes from that background of scouting and/or team-building and/or resource management, obviously. 
 

Good news? It’s not Bruce Allen anymore! :) 
 

This is more about the fact that the qualified candidates for GM have their contracts running through May, as well as the work they’ve done up to this point. So much of the draft preparation has already been completed, scouting reports given, information gathered, etc... and it’s all tied to the team they’re on with an offseason plan that runs through FA and the draft that’s been in motion for months. 
 

So, yeah, in terms of this offseason it’s going to be hard for a GM to have a big impact and you’re limiting the pool of qualified candidates if you do it now. We missed that boat when we didn’t fire Allen earlier and bring one in right away, as many of us mentioned. 
 

But that’s ok. It’s not ideal, but it’s normal. And it doesn’t diminish the need for one. 
 

The bigger issue, as we’ve been discussing here, is how it’s all structured. We’ll see. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:


You need one, and pretty much every team has one, but what will happen are guys like Doug, Kyle Smith and Alex Santos will assume some, if not all, of those responsibilities. Ron will probably assume the responsibility of overall resource management (assessing trades or what cap is spent on and where), communicating what positions/skill sets they want to prioritize in pursuing, and will also be in charge of evaluating the jobs Williams, Smith and Santos do.  
 

A lot on his plate that he’s never done before, at least not officially. And you’d rather have one guy focusing on the above who comes from that background of scouting and/or team-building and/or resource management, obviously. 
 

Good news? It’s not Bruce Allen anymore! :) 
 

This is more about the fact that the qualified candidates for GM have their contracts running through May, as well as the work they’ve done up to this point. So much of the draft preparation has already been completed, scouting reports given, information gathered, etc... and it’s all tied to the team they’re on with an offseason plan that runs through FA and the draft that’s been in motion for months. 
 

So, yeah, in terms of this offseason it’s going to be hard for a GM to have a big impact and you’re limiting the pool of qualified candidates if you do it now. We missed that boat when we didn’t fire Allen earlier and bring one in right away, as many of us mentioned. 
 

But that’s ok. It’s not ideal, but it’s normal. And it doesn’t diminish the need for one. 
 

The bigger issue, as we’ve been discussing here, is how it’s all structured. We’ll see. 

 

On an aside, Sheehan said today from what he's hearing Marty Hurney isn't coming here.    It should be interesting to see what happens.  

 

I get the strong impression that Rivera isn't interested in doing evaluations but wants the evaluator beholden to him.  Normally, I'd rather have it the reverse way.  But I am warming up to doing it the opposite way purely because of Dan.  I think I'd rather have the GM cozy with Rivera than ultimately cozy with Dan.  I think that might be some of the method to the madness here and part of why Rivera might have made it a condition.  It might not have been about Rivera wanting the power (though I bet he didn't mind it) but about lessening Dan's potential power.  So its sort of like the Marty-John Schneider operation.

 

I am betting-hoping that part of the reason why they are waiting for May is to audition Kyle.  I can understand Rivera being skeptical about anyone in that FO from the stand point of them having a relationship with Dan and that includes Kyle.  Like I've mentioned I've heard both Schaffer and Doug defend the status quo at the time.  Both clearly have a relationship with Dan.  In Rivera's shoes, I'd naturally have some cynicism about both guys from the angle of are they going to be loyal to me or are they going to be whispering to Dan -- saying hey we did this or that better before Rivera was here.  That's the type of crap which seems to fester in that building (according to some) which leads to factions and people more interested in survival and their own power versus actually winning.

 

It's unfortunate but I believe a bad culture can filter in even subtle ways where a dude like Rivera might want it removed entirely.  I like Rivera.  But I also don't think he's some magician who will make one great move after another.  He will make mistakes.  He will hire duds in the mix.  Everyone does.   But I get the idea of removing anyone loyal to Dan in that building.  In a normal organization, I'd have issues with it.  Here I understand it. 

 

Listening to some who covered Rivera in Carolina, they like him but some have said his strength and fault is he needs to have his guys -- coaches, players, etc.  He's a real loyal guy and wants to surround himself with people who have his back.  So I do think he rolls this way regardless of the situation but I think with Dan looming in the background -- that approach has an upside because it helps neuter Dan.

 

I haven't backtracked from preferring a GM centric team.  But I am backtracking some in the context of Dan.  In that context, a Marty-Schenider type of model might work best.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/5/2020 at 7:36 PM, thesubmittedone said:

 

Ron is in a tough, tough position and has a massive undertaking to deal with. He has to be able to act as two versions of himself, the Top Executive and the Head Coach. He has to be able to make decisions removed from the impulses, emotionalism, and pressure associated with his role as a coach. That has been incredibly difficult for so many and has lead to more failures than with the other method/s in terms of sustainability, as we’ve seen under Dan himself, but it’s certainly not impossible. 
 

The most promising aspect of it thus far, and what makes it different from what Dan has done in the past with this model, is it seems like there are no aspects of this organization being protected by Dan, no matter his comfort with them or their tenure. That can change, and it doesn’t mean Ron will make the best hires himself, but that is a difference and a good sign. 

 

To me the main weakness of the model is the short term-long term perspective.  Coaches are typically about now.  GM's are more likely going to have more of a long view of things.

 

I don't like it also from the stand point of putting too much on a coach's plate.  But this point worries me less with Rivera because it doesn't seem like he wants to be the evaluator like Shanny was when he was here.  That's why I compare it more to the Marty model. 

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I still think Dan Morgan is a guy we should keep an eye on.

 

I like Morgan's pedigree. and what I've read about him.  I don't hear his name mentioned as much as Schoen.   But it could be one or the other.

 

https://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest-news/details/34162/

 

Joe Schoen, assistant general manager of the National Football League's Buffalo Bills, "played quarterback as a freshman at Indiana’s DePauw University, where he majored in communications, before switching to receiver for his final three years," notes Vic Carucci of the Buffalo News. "Schoen knew he wanted to stay in sports after college. When playing professionally didn’t prove to be an option, he began exploring the possibility of working for an NFL team. Through a friend of a friend, his mother helped him get his foot in the door in 2000 as an intern with the Carolina Panthers, where he met Brandon Beane, a front-office executive prepping for the GM job he eventually landed with the Bills. Schoen started off in the Panthers’ ticket office before Beane had him working in football operations."

 

The lengthy profile coincides with the annual NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, which takes place about two-and-a-half hours south of Schoen's hometown of Elkhart, Indiana.

 

Carucci reports, "In his final months before graduation in 2001, Schoen had an offer to work for Stryker, a medical technologies company based in Kalamazoo, Mich. It called for a base salary of $45,000 and a $4,000 signing bonus. [Brandon] Beane [now general manager of the Bills] was talking about an entry-level scouting position with the Panthers that would pay $10 an hour. 'I don't have a dollar to my name,' Schoen says. 'My buddies who are working for (Stryker) are telling me, ‘After two years, if you're doing your job, you’ll be making $200,000.’ That afternoon, while I’m here, someone from Stryker called me to say, ‘If you haven’t decided you’re going to accept the offer, we’re going to take it off the table.’ I was so torn.'"

 

Schoen wound up following his passion and working as a scout for the Panthers for seven years before serving the Miami Dolphins as a national scout and an assistant director of college scouting, and eventually, director of player personnel. There he worked under NFL legend Bill Parcells. (at left: Beane and Schoen)

When you're around him, he’s always coaching," Schoen says. "I was a national scout at the time, didn't know him from Adam, and we'd be in a meeting and he'd say,

 

'You know what Tom Landry used to tell me?' I’m like, 'Oh my God! Tom Landry, Bill Parcells, and he's about to tell me something that they talked about?' I was always typing stuff, writing stuff down. He gave so much information. It was just awesome to be around him. You know he's a Hall of Famer, you know he's one of the best ever, but then when you're around him, you see how genuine he is as a person. He treated us all the same, he enjoyed being around us."

In his current job, Schoen says, "I work with the analytics department, I work with our personnel department, sometimes with football operations. I work with our communications. I touch a lot of different departments throughout the building ... A lot of my background is the hing film -- pro, college draft prospects, free agency, the waiver wire -- that's a majority of my day."

 

A communication major at DePauw, Schoen graduated in 2001. He was a three-year letterman in football (1997-2000) and quarterback as a freshman and wide receiver his final three years, serving as a captain during his senior season. (at right: Schoen as a Tiger senior)

"With the Bills, "I think Brandon and I are aligned in that we both believe in the draft and building through the draft," Schoen tells the newspaper. "It's kind of our Super Bowl, our chance to affect the roster moving forward, not just in 2019 but hopefully on into the future. We understand the task at hand and how important it is. There's not a big margin for error."

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/8/2020 at 6:49 AM, thesubmittedone said:

@Skinsinparadise
 

If Ron is to follow the Chiefs’ model, that’d mean he’s not the top executive himself, he’ll just have power as the HC (and the 46 active during the season), but the Head Scout (GM, EVP of Player Personnel) will have final say over the roster. 
 

Which would make me immensely happy. But the way this is being framed right now is weird. Why won’t they just say that? 

 

I guess we got to find the article they are referring to.   Rivera from what's been said is honest to a fault so i am gathering there is something to it.  Rivera said in one of his interviews he wants to have final say over the 53 man roster.  That's different then final say over a draft choice or a FA signing.    So who knows.  i think more of it needs to be laid out. Not having final say over the 53 roster supposedly was a big beef of Jay when he was here.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/04/chiefs-g-m-brett-veach-i-have-final-say-but-i-collaborate-with-andy-reid/

New Chiefs General Manager Brett Veach says his job gives him, not coach Andy Reid, final say over personnel decisions. But Veach, who was promoted to G.M. last month after the surprise firing of John Dorsey, says he and Reid are on the same page.

Veach said this morning on PFT Live that he and Reid report directly to Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, with neither above the other on the organizational flow chart, but he can’t see a scenario in which he and Reid are directly at odds on a personnel move.

 

“At the end of the day I’ll have final say, but it will be a collaborative effort with Coach,” Veach said. “We’ve been together a long time. We’ve butted heads on more than one occasion but we’ve always been able to be proactive in our approach, identify problems early and come together with a resolution before it gets to that point. So I’ll have final say, but our personnel staff is phenomenal, our coaching staff is phenomenal, and we’ll all work together and always make decisions that are in the best interests of the Chiefs.”

Veach and Reid have worked together for 11 years; Veach spent six years with the Eagles when Reid was the head coach in Philadelphia and is now heading into his fifth season in Kansas City. So the two of them know they can work together.

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

On an aside, Sheehan said today from what he's hearing Marty Hurney isn't coming here.    It should be interesting to see what happens.  


I think that’s a good thing, honestly. I want Ron to be forced to look at candidates from everywhere and not just who he’s comfortable with, especially at GM. Get the best guy in here, period. 
 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I get the strong impression that Rivera isn't interested in doing evaluations but wants the evaluator beholden to him.  Normally, I'd rather have it the reverse way.  But I am warming up to doing it the opposite way purely because of Dan.  I think I'd rather have the GM cozy with Rivera than ultimately cozy with Dan.  I think that might be some of the method to the madness here and part of why Rivera might have made it a condition.  It might not have been about Rivera wanting the power (though I bet he didn't mind it) but about lessening Dan's potential power.  So its sort of like the Marty-John Schneider operation.


I get it, but I wouldn’t place a big emphasis on that either way. In the end, Snyder is going to do Snyder. It’s up to him. You don’t want ANYONE really being that cozy with Dan to where their power and tenure supersedes their results. If Ron is the guy too cozy with Dan, that’s still a problem. 
 

That being said, I get why you say that, because we’ve seen Dan being more willing to move on from coaches than his top execs like Vinny and Bruce. I just blame that on Dan not understanding why his coaches fail and how much of it is BECAUSE of the environment and structure he’s created with his top execs, versus because he was too cozy with them. If that makes sense. 
 

But it’s reasonable to think what you’re thinking. 
 

As for the Marty-Schneider relationship... I don’t know how that went exactly, but I just don’t like the coach having that power. I think the only reason it works with the Seahawks is because Schneider is essentially given the power to build the team. Carroll’s “final say” is by name only outside of the 53 during the season, as everyone recognizes Schneider as the architect. That’s just a rare occurrence, and kudos to Carroll for essentially giving it up, but I don’t know why they even have it that way if that’s how it works. 
 

The Patriots are the exception to the exception because of Brady. I won’t delve deeper, you know where I’m coming from on that and I know

you pretty much agree. 
 

So that leaves the Chiefs and the Saints, both of whom haven’t done it this way. I don’t get why they’re being referred to. That’s concerning. 
 

Now, maybe Ron does that exactly like Pete, we get someone like Schneider in here in that position (maybe that IS Kyle Smith), and we allow them to build the team without Ron overruling them, essentially giving them final say over personnel outside of the 53 during the season. 
 

I’d have no problem with that, but I just don’t get why they’re not just saying that? 
 

Maybe they will once the hire is actually made. That’s my hope. But if Ron is the guy they all report to, I’m not sure I can just ignore the issues with it, as much as I want to. 
 

Maybe you’re on to something and it’s to provide that extra barrier to Snyder... but isn’t that just replacing it with Ron? And doesn’t that just mean that Snyder is still a problem and he’s still hindering us from setting it up right? 
 

I don’t know.
 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am betting-hoping that part of the reason why they are waiting for May is to audition Kyle.  I can understand Rivera being skeptical about anyone in that FO from the stand point of them having a relationship with Dan and that includes Kyle.  Like I've mentioned I've heard both Schaffer and Doug defend the status quo at the time.  Both clearly have a relationship with Dan.  In Rivera's shoes, I'd naturally have some cynicism about both guys from the angle of are they going to be loyal to me or are they going to be whispering to Dan -- saying hey we did this or that better before Rivera was here.  That's the type of crap which seems to fester in that building (according to some) which leads to factions and people more interested in survival and their own power versus actually winning.

 

Totally agree. You know both of us haven’t shut up about that for years, lol. ;) 
 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I haven't backtracked from preferring a GM centric team.  But I am backtracking some in the context of Dan.  In that context, a Marty-Schenider type of model might work best.


For me, it was never about a centric model. The reality in the NFL is that the majority owner is the guy, outside of the Packers, of course. But then they have a President themselves who is on top of it all. 
 

I think the way the argument has shifted recently into this “centric” stuff, as well as when hires are made, is actually leading to confusion as to what we’ve been saying for years. 
 

We just wanted a top notch Head Scout in here running player personnel. That’s really all it ever was. We wanted that person to be qualified and be able to fulfill that role without unwarranted interference. And we knew that, more than anything, not having that person has killed the chances of every coach we’ve had here. 
 

The majority of successful

models have varied from having the HC and GM both equally reporting to the Owner/top exec or the GM being the top exec himself and the HC reports to him, but it’s extremely rare to see the HC be the top exec. 
 

So that being the case now is pretty concerning, and it’s not a new thing for Dan. I’m bothered by why they’re acting like it is and why they’re actually giving false examples of it. 
 

Doesn’t mean it won’t work. And maybe you’re right, that Dan can’t help himself but mess that up when a GM is the top exec and he gets too cozy with him as opposed to the coach... but I’d say, if that were the case, then have them both equally report to him. That should be an even better way of avoiding one guy becoming the only voice for Dan or becoming too cozy with him. 
 

But it just goes back to Dan himself, again. That’s what I was getting at when trying to marry what @Lombardi's_kid_brother and @KDawgbrought up about Dan recently, regarding him needing just one voice and his malleability. We need Dan to be able to discern things himself. That’s the only way any of this works. I don’t think that has anything to do with making the HC the top exec and the concerns that come with it. 
 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To me the main weakness of the model is the short term-long term perspective.  Coaches are typically about now.  GM's are more likely going to have more of a long view of things.

 

I don't like it also from the stand point of putting too much on a coach's plate.  But this point worries me less with Rivera because it doesn't seem like he wants to be the evaluator like Shanny was when he was here.  That's why I compare it more to the Marty model. 


Agreed, but then the problem still remains that Ron is the evaluator of the evaluators. Is that ideal? Should he be in that position when his background is more about coaching and teaching versus scouting, resource management, and roster construction? Why? 
 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I guess we got to find the article they are referring to.   Rivera from what's been said is honest to a fault so i am gathering there is something to it.  Rivera said in one of his interviews he wants to have final say over the 53 man roster.  That's different then final say over a draft choice or a FA signing.    So who knows.  i think more of it needs to be laid out. Not having final say over the 53 roster supposedly was a big beef of Jay when he was here.


Yeah, I’d love to see that article, because even in the article you posted, it’s not the model they implied nor how fans took it. It’s totally possible I’m overreacting and it’ll all get sorted out like this. 
 

And Jay was absolutely right to have that beef. You can’t discipline, build around the guys you want, or have the authority you need as a coach during the season if you’re not able to control that. We even heard how Bruce was involved in the depth chart, it was ridiculous. I think it was a big part of the lashing out that lead to Peterson not being active the first game. Just all around problematic. 
 

I was so happy when I read that quote  from Ron before we hired him, where he said he doesn’t want final say over the roster but just the active 46 (the 53 during the season, essentially). 
 

But then the presser happened and the words they used were definitely concerning in regards to that. The fact that so many fans even started pushing this “coach-centric” stuff and started to shift the conversation to who hires whom first, ignoring or downplaying that it’s about the structure most of all, suggests I wasn’t off about what it implied. 
 

If the GM hired reports to Ron and isn’t his equal in terms of authority and span of control over his department... that means Ron evaluates how good of a job that guy is doing and it’s not Dan or another executive better suited to do so

fairly. That’s just an extremely rare set up for sustainable success. 
 

Now, Ron might end up being a great executive. He might be the perfect guy to evaluate everyone, showing the ability to separate his roles and avoid his inherent biases. It’s just hard to believe that, automatically. There’s nothing in his past to indicate he’s best suited to do that. The most success he’s had was in a traditional HC role with others performing the supporting roles needed and him just focusing on that. 
 

Unfortunately, we need Dan to ultimately be good at that. There’s really no avoiding that. 
 

Again, I’m hoping that, after the draft, we name a GM, Ron gives them final say over player personnel, and they both report to Dan who becomes better at discerning who is doing their job and who isn’t. 
 

Thus far, I’m very happy with the set up and the titles/roles they’ve created. I LOVE how a lot of the vagueness that was the structure before is getting eliminated. I like how there isn’t a corner of the organization, no matter how tenured or how close to Dan they previously were, free from accountability. Very good signs about Ron’s ability as an executive.
 

But it’s only the beginning.

 

Like you said, he’s going to make mistakes and he’s going to have weaknesses along with his strengths. Which is why it’s vital there are checks and balances and why most successful organizations set it up the way they do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up front, Rivera is a quality person and a pretty good coach. So this is no criticism of him.

 

As always with the Redskins, it's the way things are done, not what is ultimately done.

 

And this feels a little Zorn-ish right now. In that instance, Dan went out and hired coordinators before he had a coach in place. So that was weird.

 

In this case, it seems like we have a staff without a front office in place. And we're not going to sort that out until later.

 

What does that? To me, it means that after arguably the worst season in a pretty miserable 20 year run, Dan still doesn't know what he actually wants the team to look like or how he wants it to function. "Well, we'll figure out this other stuff later." The number one problem in this organization in every era has always been a lack of accountability. Even under Gibbs, there was always this debate of "Who signed that guy?" where sometimes we would be hearing, "Well, Greg Williams is responsible for that dude being here" or "Bugel wanted him" or whatever.

 

It just seems that we are still in a situation where whoever the person who hangs out with Dan the most is going to be the person making all the big decisions. And we may not even hire that person until the summer.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

It just seems that we are still in a situation where whoever the person who hangs out with Dan the most is going to be the person making all the big decisions. And we may not even hire that person until the summer.

 

 

Nothing about this seems that way. The only thing that even remotely approaches this is the past. Which... broken hearts never truly heal. So understandable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Nothing about this seems that way. The only thing that even remotely approaches this is the past. Which... broken hearts never truly heal. So understandable.

 

We are going into a draft with a front office that is probably going to be fired after the draft.

 

Perfectly normal.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

We are going into a draft with a front office that is probably going to be fired after the draft.

 

Perfectly normal.

 

Actually... it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

That being said, I get why you say that, because we’ve seen Dan being more willing to move on from coaches than his top execs like Vinny and Bruce. I just blame that on Dan not understanding why his coaches fail and how much of it is BECAUSE of the environment and structure he’s created with his top execs, versus because he was too cozy with them. If that makes sense. 

 

I think we agree on most related to the FO structure, Dan, etc.  Maybe this is our only disagreement.  And I don't think there is a right or wrong to it.   It's just a guess.

 

I used to think that Dan's biggest issue is his management style as to his business approach to football.  I still do but now I do think that the dude's craving for friendship and his emotional make up are a big part of the problem that impinges on his management style.  Over the years, I think even less of Dan as to understand how to build a winner than I have in the past.  I think the dude's weirdness and social skills and social needs are a large part of the pie. 

 

I see Dan as having the emotional maturity of a teenager.  He wants to hang out with the cool crowd and for them to think he's cool, too.  He's emotional and condescending (people have said that's how he is with many of the employees there) with the exception of his best buddies who help validate his ego who he feels especially aligned with.  I think Bruce was the manifestation of Dan's weird teenage ego trips and craving to be validated.  I've met him a couple of times and the dude comes off like he's your best friend in the world -- and that's how he talks to a stranger like me, I can just imagine Dan.

 

And yeah I don't mean any of this in a pompous way where I got a handle on Dan's psychological profile.  But my point is I've given up as to understanding him on pure logic.  Now I think the dude's psychological profile matters in a big way.  Emotion > logic.  Maybe my version of it is wrong, who knows.  But I do think its something psychological that goes beyond his pure business approaches because he does too many things that defy logic to me. 

 

So when Dan is looking for who to hang out with at 10 pm and have some drinks and talk about lets say why did the Redskins start lets say 3-5 and Rivera has promised so much and hasn't delivered, etc.  I'd rather that GM wouldn't be a dude that feels beholden to Dan first and foremost as opposed to the coach where lets say he's already duked it out some with Rivera.  Because a dude like that could say look Dan, you got me, I've heard some complaints from the players about Rivera, he might not be all he cracked up to be.  I gave him a loaded roster but he's gotten too big for his britches or whatever....

 

I'd rather that dude be close with Rivera and say look I can vouch for the dude.  You got to be patient -- success is rarely linear, hang in there, etc. 

 

So purely from the context of Dan, I think I am OK with a coach centric model.  It's not my favorite model.  But I am warming up to it the more I digest it and relive my own experiences in working here and there with people who are like Dan.    I talked about this in another thread which is its very easy for things to go off the rails in some fashion or form in the process of trying to win.  It's stressful and you'll have ups and downs.  And its very easy to scapegoat and undermine the decision maker.    Dan seems especially susceptible to this process.  

 

I go back to some who have said Gibbs was the perfect coach to keep Dan under control relatively speaking.   Some said it wasn't just about Dan's natural reverence for Joe but also about that Joe knew who to work Dan.   Gibbs is a master of handling personalities.  Gibbs would make Dan feel invested in the decisions and make the dude feel special even when he (not Dan) was making the call.   I think that's critical for Dan.  That was said by someone who worked with Dan recently in a WP expose about Dan which is make him feel like he's part of the decision making -- lead him to the water and make him feel that he made the call when it was really someone else's idea, etc. 

 

I think Rivera is made from the same cloth as Gibbs.  It's been said that Gibbs gave him advice as to how to handle Dan.  So Rivera might be the perfect guy to keep Dan in the cage as much as possible.  If Dan is working for a GM who doesn't seem beholden to Rivera then the split factions in the building stuff can much more easily manifest.  

 

So yeah I do like the idea of a strong GM and the coach works for him versus the other way around everything being equal.   But I don't hate it the other way as long as the coach doesn't become the defacto personnel guy.  I use the Marty-Schneider example because from what I read Schneider make the evaluations and calls or at least most of them.  But Schneider was beholden to Marty not Dan.  I don't think it was a coincidence that Dan got rid of Schneider along with Marty because he didn't see Schenider as "his guy".  I don't want Dan to ultimately have his guy.

 

Some say wasn't Bruce Shanny's guy?  From what I've heard yes and no.  Shanny wasn't close with Bruce but thought he needed a money guy and he was available and be a good fit.  But there wasn't years of loyalty between the two of them.  And Bruce was brought into the building first to give Dan  an opportunity to bond.  And Bruce wasn't even a traditional GM he just worked his way up the ladder.  Dan supposedly had his eye on Bruce for years.  So to me this situation and the one we got now isn't apples to apples.  

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOMEWORK: JP Finalay has a guy covering the 49ers on and they talked a bunch about structure, Kyle basically chose his GM, how it is working, etc.

 

It is a good listen. The interview is in the middle of the Pod. 
 

It’s on the Redskins Talk Pod from this morning...

 

If @Skinsinparadise and @thesubmittedone can assign homework, so can I.

 

Edited by Voice_of_Reason
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a right or wrong way to navigate the coach/GM hires. Each team has a different cultural makeup, which means each roles will be different. I'd add depending on when you are looking for specific roles and when candidates become available that can dictate the timing. 

 

As the thread mentioned form a philosophy side, sure we can banter around, but that's strictly an academic discussion. In the real world separate vacancies, the hiring process for each and availability of the right candidates happen on different timelines. 

Edited by Unbias
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

HOMEWORK: JP Finalay has a guy covering the 49ers on and they talked a bunch about structure, Kyle basically chose his GM, how it is working, etc.

 

It is a good listen. The interview is in the middle of the Pod. 
 

It’s on the Redskins Talk Pod from this morning...

 

If @Skinsinparadise and @thesubmittedone can assign homework, so can I.

 

 

thanks I have to watch my kid's football game tomorrow, so it will give me something to do while watching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I think we agree on most related to the FO structure, Dan, etc.  Maybe this is our own disagreement.  And I don't think there is a right or wrong to it.   It's just a guess.


Yup, I’m with you on that. I wouldn’t even call it a disagreement. You’re just projecting it differently than I am. That’s all good. 
 

It’s like I’ve said about our talks regarding Dan and how much is it him versus Bruce... there’s no way to really know from where we sit, but I’d rather your version be right on it than mine. :ols: 
 

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I used to think that Dan's biggest issue is his management style as to his business approach to football.  I still do but now I do think that the dude's craving for friendship and his emotional make up are a big part of the problem that impinges on his management style.  Over the years, I think even less of Dan as to understand how to build a winner than I have in the past.  I think the dude's weirdness and social skills and social needs are a large part of the pie. 

 

I see Dan as having the emotional maturity of a teenager.  He wants to hang out with the cool crowd and for them to think he's cool, too.  He's emotional and condescending (people have said that's how he is with many of the employees there) with the exception of his best buddies who help validate his ego who he feels especially aligned with.  I think Bruce was the manifestation of Dan's weird teenage ego trips and craving to be validated.  I've met him a couple of times and the dude comes off like he's your best friend in the world -- and that's how he talks to a stranger like me, I can just imagine Dan.

 

And yeah I don't mean any of this in a pompous way where I got a handle on Dan's psychological profile.  But my point is I've given up as to understanding him on pure logic.  Now I think the dude's psychological profile matters in a big way.  Emotion > logic.  Maybe my version of it is wrong, who knows.  But I do think its something psychological that goes beyond his pure business approaches because he does too many things that defy logic to me. 


Yeah, don’t worry, I don’t take it as pompous. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable angle to have on it. And I don’t disagree with any of it, really.

 

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

So when Dan is looking for who to hang out with at 10 pm and have some drinks and talk about lets say why did the Redskins start lets say 3-5 and Rivera has promised so much and hasn't delivered, etc.  I'd rather that GM wouldn't be a dude that feels beholden to Dan first and foremost as opposed to the coach where lets say he's already duked it out some with Rivera.  Because a dude like that could say look Dan, you got me, I've heard some complaints from the players about Rivera, he might not be all he cracked up to be.  I gave him a loaded roster but he's gotten too big for his britches or whatever....

 

I'd rather that dude be close with Rivera and say look I can vouch for the dude.  You got to be patient -- success is rarely linear, hang in there, etc. 

 

So purely from the context of Dan, I think I am OK with a coach centric model.  It's not my favorite model.  But I am warming up to it the more I digest it and relive my own experiences in working here and there with people who are like Dan.    I talked about this in another thread which is its very easy for things to go off the rails in some fashion or form in the process of trying to win.  It's stressful and you'll have ups and downs.  And its very easy to scapegoat and undermine the decision maker.    Dan seems especially susceptible to this process.  


I get it, and I like the angle that Ron is classy himself so he won’t feed Dan’s worst impulses... but I think where I’m less willing to just accept this without major concerns regarding the model, is that it can go either way. 
 

Like, none of this negates either Ron or the GM becoming the wrong guy in Dan’s ear. It really boils down to Dan being able to discern the truth. That’s where the problem is, so I can’t prefer one model over another because of Dan’s inability to do so. 
 

It makes no difference to me if Dan is mislead by his coach or by his GM. It can happen from either side equally to me. Rivera might even be good intentioned when he presents Dan with bad ideas or justifications. 
 

Does that make sense? 
 

As simple as I can say it, the model that is chosen is entirely separate for me from Dan’s inability to discern the truth. 
 

Isn’t it equally as bad if Ron is the lone voice in Dan’s ear and is actually a source of the problem (or even THE source)?
 

I think the most important thing is for Dan to be able to see it all for what it is. That’s what it really boils down to.  Not who is closest to him. 
 

The way you can avoid the blame game, as an owner, is you tie your hires to each other’s hips. So if you make the GM the top exec, you tell him he only gets one or two hires at HC. Or you give him a timeline and specific goals that are equal to the Head Coach he has. He’s going to have an incentive, then, to be loyal and not play those games. He has to take ownership for his hires there, so that if they fail, he fails. It comes down to Dan’s system of accountability, really. 
 

That being said, it does help me that you’re warming up to it. I know you and I perceive things almost identically, so if you’re okay with it, it does give me some relief.  
 

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I go back to some who have said Gibbs was the perfect coach to keep Dan under control relatively speaking.   Some said it wasn't just about Dan's natural reverence for Joe but also about that Joe knew who to work Dan.   Gibbs is a master of handling personalities.  Gibbs would make Dan feel invested in the decisions and make the dude feel special even when he (not Dan) was making the call.   I think that's critical for Dan.  That was said by someone who worked with Dan recently in a WP expose about Dan which is make him feel like he's part of the decision making -- lead him to the water and make him feel that he made the call when it was really someone else's idea, etc. 

 

I think Rivera is made from the same cloth as Gibbs.  It's been said that Gibbs gave him advice as to how to handle Dan.  So Rivera might be the perfect guy to keep Dan in the cage as much as possible.  If Dan is working for a GM who doesn't seem beholden to Rivera then the split factions in the building stuff can much more easily manifest.  


To me, that’s just a depressing look into what we’re dealing with Dan more than what it means in terms of what model is best. 
 

Think about it like this. Whether it’s the HC or a GM, they’re going to have to play that game. It sucks. 
 

I think, really, what you’re getting at is that you want whoever is the classiest dude in the building who knows how to handle people in the best way, with sincerity, to be the most powerful guy... because of Dan. 
 

And since Ron is that guy and will

usually be that guy in comparison to most football people, you warmed up to this model. 
 

Am I on to something there? 
 

It’s actually very reasonable. I think it’s just unfortunate we even have to think like this. 😕 
 

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

So yeah I do like the idea of a strong GM and the coach works for him versus the other way around everything being equal.   But I don't hate it the other way as long as the coach doesn't become the defacto personnel guy.  I use the Marty-Schneider example because from what I read Schneider make the evaluations and calls or at least most of them.  But Schneider was beholden to Marty not Dan.  I don't think it was a coincidence that Dan got rid of Schneider along with Marty because he didn't see Schenider as "his guy".  I don't want Dan to ultimately have his guy.

 

Some say wasn't Bruce Shanny's guy?  From what I've heard yes and no.  Shanny wasn't close with Bruce but thought he needed a money guy and he was available and be a good fit.  But there wasn't years of loyalty between the two of them.  And Bruce was brought into the building first to give Dan  an opportunity to bond.  And Bruce wasn't even a traditional GM he just worked his way up the ladder.  Dan supposedly had his eye on Bruce for years.  So to me this situation and the one we got now isn't apples to apples.  


I get it. I really do. It’s just hard because:

 

1) The Coach being the top exec has very few examples of sustainable success and many more examples of failure while;

 

2) The GM being the top exec, or equal in power to, the HC has many more examples of sustainable success and fewer examples of failure in comparison to the above model. 
 

I hope I worded that properly, because people can sometimes think, when saying that, that you’re saying the versions of model 2 are guaranteed to succeed and model 1 is guaranteed to fail. 


So, yeah, it’s tough to not have that concern. 
 

Now, maybe it’s trending differently. Maybe this is a good way to set up coaches for success and avoid the pitfalls of being blamed when things don’t go well on the team building side. I can buy that. But, man, it’s just a lot on their plate. A lot. 
 

In the case of Ron and the Skins, my “warming up to it” will be directly proportionate to: 

 

1) How good the hire will be at GM in terms of their background, qualifications, and recent successes.
 

Some of the names mentioned like Dan Morgan, Will McClay, George Paton, Kyle Smith, etc... have me giddy just because they’re guys who rose through the ranks and will get a chance to make a name for themselves for the first time as the top personnel guy. I’ll be happy with guys like Rick Smith (you corrected me on that, I had no idea about the reason he left the Texans, very sad) or (after I learned that he was with the Colts under Ballard recently) Morocco Brown. Hurney, too, but I’ll have some skepticism regarding it being too much of a comfort hire versus the most qualified. 
 

2) How they structure it. If the GM gets final say over the roster outside of the 53 during the season and reports to Dan, not Ron, I’ll be ecstatic.

 

I will have next to no problems with the way they went about it at that point. I wouldn’t care that Ron was the one who lead that hiring process and, in fact, I’d like it for all the reasons you’ve mentioned as well as @KDawg  

 

If just one of those two things occur, the “warming up” will only be by that much with the other part of me concerned and skeptical. If neither occurs, ugh... don’t want to think about it. But if both?
 

Yeah, awesome. TSO the insufferable homer will likely return. :ols: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

HOMEWORK: JP Finalay has a guy covering the 49ers on and they talked a bunch about structure, Kyle basically chose his GM, how it is working, etc.

 

It is a good listen. The interview is in the middle of the Pod. 
 

It’s on the Redskins Talk Pod from this morning...

 

If @Skinsinparadise and @thesubmittedone can assign homework, so can I.

 


I’ll listen to it when I get a chance. But here’s what I know about their structure:

 

Quote

New 49ers general manager John Lynch explained how roster control will be handled with new coach Kyle Shanahan Thursday at their introductory press conference.

 

Shanahan will have final say on the 53-man roster, while Lynch will control the offseason 90-man roster, free agency and the draft.

https://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2017/02/09/john-lynch-explains-how-49ers-personnel-control-will-be-divvied-up/

 

So I always understood that they’re another example of the structure I prefer, not a “HC is top exec” one. 

Like I’ve said now, and I know it’s super repetitive, the structure to me is what matters, not who hired

whom first... though that does hold some level of significance. However, as long as it ends up in that structure, it’s not a big deal. 
 

I posted this in the Browns’ thread in the ATN, so I’ll put it here because I think it’s relevant: 

 

Quote

There is absolutely a “right way”, and the pattern has been borne out in the NFL for virtually its entire history. The VAST majority of sustainably successful franchises have really good to great Head Scouts (GM, EVP of Player Personnel, etc...) with final say over the roster. This is indisputable. The exceptions to this rule are extremely rare (Seahawks, Patriots), but even then the Seahawks still have someone qualified at that position and is considered the architect of that team by everyone around the league. 
 

With the Seahawks, John Schneider is considered the architect even though Carroll has final say. With the 49ers, for instance, John Lynch has final say over the 90 man roster, draft and FA during the offseason and Kyle has it over the 53 during the season. That’s actually what Ron had said he wanted himself before he was hired, which is why it was disappointing to see that shift during the initial presser. Hopefully that’s how it ends up, either way. 
 

You look at the teams that made the playoffs this season. Outside of the Pats and Texans (and that team is mostly a Rick Smith-built team so it’s unfair to even include them here), every one of them has a strong GM coming from a background in evaluating personnel with final say over the roster. 
 

The Vikings have Rick Spielman. 
 

The 49ers have John Lynch. 
 

The Chiefs have Brett Veach. 
 

The Titans have Jon Robinson. 
 

The Bills have Brandon Beane. 
 

The Seahawks have John Schneider. 
 

The Ravens have Eric DeCosta. 
 

The Saints have Mickey Loomis. 
 

The Eagles have Howie Roseman. 
 

The Packers have Brian Gutekunst. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:


 

It’s like I’ve said about our talks regarding Dan and how much is it him versus Bruce... there’s no way to really know from where we sit, but I’d rather your version be right on it than mine. :ols: 
 

 

 

My thoughts on Bruce actually bring home my point here.  And with Bruce its mostly a guess but some beat guys have painted a picture like this so that's part of what's driving my belief on that front.

 

A.  Dan hired Bruce.  So naturally anything that Bruce does is on Dan.  

B.  Dan made some decisions and used Bruce as a cover

C.  He also left Bruce some autonomy too and he made his own decisions aplenty

D.  Bruce called by a reporter the Prince of Darkness before he got here fed Dan's distrust in the media and fostered an us versus them mentality in a much deeper way than Vinny did.  Vinny and even Dan were much more transparent during that regime relatively speaking. 

E.  Bruce like Dan have some dark impulses.  As one agent put it, Bruce thinks scandal is the price is doing business -- suggesting he has no problem fostering it to get the job done.

F.  Bruce and Dan are likeminded vindictive and prefer the blame game-scapegoating

 

When Dan would tell people (plenty of ex-players-media types have expressed this) that you guys wanted me to stop interfering and just trust a guy to run the team -- and I did it.  Yet, you still give me a hard time.  I think he actually believes it and it was partly true.  I do think Dan made some moves in the shadows and it wasn't all Bruce.  But I do believe that Bruce made plenty of calls on his own.  My issue with it was Dan found a mini extroverted version of him.   

 

Both dudes don't know much about football.  Both have big egos who want to say it's not me but him if things go awry.   Both are vindictive and would run over anyone who gets in their way.  No wonder they were inseparable.   That's part of the reason why I can see the problem with Dan if he's the dude who hires the GM versus Rivera.  I fear he will find someone who is likeminded or feels especially beholden to him. 

 

In that context, Rivera's integrity is more important to me than even his competence because the sleaze that has emanated from this organization has bothered me more than the incompetence.  In a way, I would get the few people who have been saying for years get behind the owner and Bruce and celebrate them from a fan point of view as opposed to trashing them because they are "our guys, warts and all" -- I would get the point if they come off like good guys who might be flawed as to their competence.  But from my perspective they don't come off like good guys. 

 

I used to frequent other board's web sites before we'd play them to see what they think.  I'd even post on them here and there.  It's been a long time since I've done so.  but I've noticed a difference and something that's unique to here.   With this fan base, we got much more polarizing internal debates.  This versus that.  Pick a side stuff.  With other teams you got that some but typically its about a Qb battle or a specific position.  The challenges here aren't the usual ones from what I observed. 

 

Here its been fundamental stuff like:

 

RG3 versus Shanny

RG3 and Dan what kind of relationship?

RG3 versus Kirk

Kirk versus Bruce

Scot versus Bruce

Whose guy is Alex -- Jay?  Doug? Bruce?  Dan?

Kyle S. versus Dan

Kyle S. versus Bruce

Mike versus Dan

Jay part of this faction or that faction?

Jay versus Dwayne

Dan versus scouting staff

Trent versus Bruce

On and on and on

 

And we all get into some heated debates about all these permutations.  But they are really weird permutations.  I know a few blame the fan base on this stuff.  But I don't.  I don't blame the people I've battled with on some of this stuff either because its part of the polarizing culture set up by this owner.   We all have our own opinions on it and hard perspectives about all these battles. 

 

And we tend to like the people who agree with us and not always so much the ones who don't agree (especially if an exchange gets heated) because that's human nature.    But all this crap IMO is part of the rotten culture over there.  It's part of the reason why fans have checked out. 

 

In the 80s-early 90s, you were just a Redskins fan.  The modern version of it involves picking a side.  Are you a Kirk guy or a Bruce guy or a Scot guy or an Alex guy?  Do you believe Dan interferes or changes or not?  Scot wronged or not?   Name a number of these. 

 

Now we got radio segments this week running about the 49ers versus Vikings game.  Who does Bruce or Dan hate more?  What outcome would bother them more?   It's sort of a sick game that's part of the culture.  And no this isn't what happens in Buffalo, etc at least not to this heightened degree and vast extent.  

 

I say all this as the backdrop of what I think about now.  We need someone who brings class-integrity to this operation.  And if that's who has Dan's ear, I am OK with that.  For me the key is I don't want Rivera active in evaluating any players.  I get the sense that he doesn't want to do that either.  If I learn otherwise, then I'd hate this.   

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

HOMEWORK: JP Finalay has a guy covering the 49ers on and they talked a bunch about structure, Kyle basically chose his GM, how it is working, etc.

 

It is a good listen. The interview is in the middle of the Pod. 
 

It’s on the Redskins Talk Pod from this morning...

 

If @Skinsinparadise and @thesubmittedone can assign homework, so can I.

 

 I listened to it. My summary.

 

A. He thinks the coach centric model where the coach brings in the GM works best. He has seen it multiple times in SF play out both ways but the coach centric way has been smoother way with much less drama.

 

B. He thinks Rivera is making a mistake by waiting until after the draft to hire the GM.

 

C. Kyle is a much nicer dude in SF since he has a nicer environment there than he did in DC.

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.