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

[Voice_of_Reason]

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 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.

Yeah, the conclusion I'm not sure I agree with, but I liked the way he described the situation I thought was interesting.  

 

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

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

I think he's missing the fact that it seems to be clear as mud Ron wants somebody who is under contract who he can't get until after the draft.  

 

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

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

Yeah, I didn't care so much about this part at all.  Kyle came off as an arrogant ass while he was here, but the situation between Dan, Bruce, Mike and Griffin and his dad was so freaking toxic it might drive the Dali Lama to swear like a sailor.  

[skinsfan212689]

I think we bring in an outside GM. Kyle Smith should be promoted to Senior VP of player personnel or Asst. GM. Give him college and pro personnel control/responsibility and add a GM to oversee it all. Maybe Dan Morgan or Rick Smith (whomever Rivera wants there). 

No need for a team president. 
 

That would be a good set up going forward. 

 

I’d also be ok with Kyle getting the GM role if RR thinks he’s ready/earned it. 
 

Hail

[Voice_of_Reason]

9 minutes ago, skinsfan212689 said:

I think we bring in an outside GM. Kyle Smith should be promoted to Senior VP of player personnel or Asst. GM. Give him college and pro personnel control/responsibility and add a GM to oversee it all. Maybe Dan Morgan or Rick Smith (whomever Rivera wants there). 

No need for a team president. 
 

That would be a good set up going forward. 

 

I’d also be ok with Kyle getting the GM role if RR thinks he’s ready/earned it. 
 

Hail

Kyle Smith is going to either be promoted to GM, I r he’s going to stay where he is and eventually leave. 
 

My guess is Ron wants HIS guy as the GM, and his guy is under contract through the draft, whoever that is.

 

Ron is the head guy, nobody is going to brought in above him.  
 

The question is going to be if the new GM reports to Dan and has some autonomy by structure, or he reports to Ron. 
 

My preference is the new GM works for Dan, and Ron and said GM work together.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

@thesubmittedone FEIW, I am actually opposed to having the coach have the final say on the 53 in a lot of situations because a lot of coaches keep their guys, who know their system, are coachable, yadda yadda around over “projects” with higher upside and better physical skills.  Not all situations, and it really depends on what happens here, but in a lot of situations.  
 

This is how Luavao and Ryan Grant (and a lot of other try hard, physically limited guys) hung around for so long.  
 

I prefer the GM have the final roster say overall to prevent that kid of situation.  Or at the very least that the coach needs to listen to the GM I’m those situations. 
 

IF that’s not the case, as I believe it won’t be here and isn’t on SF, then you’re trusting the coach to 1. Listen to the GM, 2. take both a short and long term view of the roster, and 3. Be willing to keep “projects” at certain positions.  
 

Kyle seems to be a guy who can make that happen.  Ron might be as well.  
 

There are a lot of coaches who should not have that type of responsibility because they would screw it up. 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

FEIW, I am actually opposed to having the coach have the final say on the 53 in a lot of situations because a lot of coaches keep their guys, who know their system, are coachable, yadda yadda around over “projects” with higher upside and better physical skills.  Not all situations, and it really depends on what happens here, but in a lot of situations.  

 

Well, that's mitigated to a degree when the GM has final say over the 90, draft and FA during the offseason. He can get rid of those guys at any time he wants, essentially. So I don't mind it at all. 

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This is how Luavao and Ryan Grant (and a lot of other try hard, physically limited guys) hung around for so long.  

I don't really agree with this take on things, but I'd rather not get into it as it'll take up this entire thread if I focused on where I think you had it wrong on these issues. Water under the bridge. But I'll just say this, Grant, for instance, hung around for the duration of his rookie contract, that's it.

 

But, yeah, in season, I don't mind coaches having final say over the 53. I think it helps with being able to discipline players, control who gets playing time, and scheming around the guys you want with some semblance of consistency. 

 

The loyalty issue is real, but as long as the GM has final say during the offseason it shouldn't affect things for long. If a GM feels like a coach is blind regarding a player, he can move on from him during the offseason and that'd be within his rights. Do you really want to do that in the middle of a season when a coach is trusting in that dude to help him in a certain way? I don't know... I think that's where the "collaborative" part has to come in. 

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I prefer the GM have the final roster say overall to prevent that kid of situation.  Or at the very least that the coach needs to listen to the GM I’m those situations. 
  

IF that’s not the case, as I believe it won’t be here and isn’t on SF, then you’re trusting the coach to 1. Listen to the GM, 2. take both a short and long term view of the roster, and 3. Be willing to keep “projects” at certain positions.  

 

I get it, and I probably prefer it this way, too... but, I don't know, I see the positives with it, as well. If anything, it automatically gives the coach some level of autonomy on the matter, which would help with fostering a healthier, mutually beneficial, relationship versus a GM just becoming a total dictator and refusing to budge on anything. Now, that happening would be a detriment even if the GM had that say over everything... but I think it just sets it up to avoid that potential issue in an official manner, if that makes sense. 

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

There are a lot of coaches who should not have that type of responsibility because they would screw it up. 

 

I agree, but I think you're giving that final say over the 53 too much weight. I mean, think about it like this, he only has final say over the 53 HIS GM GAVE HIM. It's not like they're his guys exclusively. The only way he really can be at odds with the GM is if the GM recognizes, during the season, he made a mistake about a player (good or bad) whereas the coach doesn't see it and sticks to the initial evaluation and, therefore, the predetermined role for said player. 

 

But I'd imagine that's extremely rare and, again, once the offseason comes along the GM can do what he wants about it. It's hard to imagine something like that destroying an entire season unless it happens on a massive scale. But that would just mean those guys simply can't work with each other and I don't think any types of authority given to each title would matter in that case.   

[Skinsinparadise]

Listening to a host of Carolina reporters talk about Rivera, if we want to see the days of Gibbs touting Thrash as a true Redskin or Jay touting Grant, etc ending -- that's unlikely happening.  

 

Some who covered Rivera said he's very loyal and often to a fault who will stick to players who might be struggling on the field but because he goes way back with them or has a personal affinity to them -- he will keep playing them at the expense of a potentially better player on the bench.   So the description they were giving is Rivera is the type to have his James Thrash and Ryan Grant types where some will shake their heads and think what gives? 

 

I know that style was a pet peeve of  @Voice_of_Reason but from what's been described by those who covered him be ready to see that dynamic if anything doubled up as opposed to going away.  It personally never bothered me.  In my work situations there are certain people who I have special affection and enjoy working with even if they aren't the best at what they do and sometimes the way they help me isn't totally obvious to outsiders.  So I get that mindset.  It doesn't bother me.

 

Every coach has flaws and their own idiosyncratic methods.  The more important dynamic I think Rivera will bring to the table is his gravitas, integrity, mindset.  This team IMO is desperate for a cultural reset.  I was more OK with Jay than most here but I don't think he's a culture setter -- he's more of a go along to get along guy.  I think Rivera is willing to push an overhaul in approach and mindset which should help. 

 

I think the reason why most suspect Rivera made Dan get rid of Bruce is Bruce would have been the counter to change the culture guy so to speak.  The same dude who said the culture is damned good.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Dan emphasized the culture aspect of Rivera in the press release.  I don't think Dan would know good culture even if it hit him in his face so I'd put money that was all Rivera. 

 

Bruce would be the dude whispering in Dan's ear about anything and everything that went wrong and fueling versus tapering down Dan's emotional impulses.    Russell-Loverro were talking about this on air today saying you got to rid of the FOD (friends of Dan) and replace them with with FOR (friends of Rivera) to put the rest the whisper campaign that inevitable happens at Redskins Park.

 

Loverro who is as cynical as it gets about Dan even delved into my favorite analogy about Dan which is Steinbrenner-Yankees.  He said what I often do which is George finally calmed down the year he got instant success when Torre took over.  At that point, the fans had Torre's back and any rumor of him impinging on Torre wouldn't be greeted warmy by Yankee fans.  I think we need something similar here which is quick success.

 

Sometimes you can do things totally right and it doesn't come together that neatly.  You can get bad luck.  You can make some bad hires and have to readjust.  Bad picks, Bad FA signings, etc.  IMO the key is no coach or GM is a magician. They can all be picked apart.  They will almost all have bad years, bad off seasons.  It happens.  A particular backer of Bruce would argue with me sometimes by saying I have to give him more time.  And while I agreed with his concept of give people more time and it doesn't always happen right away -- still I didn't feel Bruce was the right guy so I wasn't going to be crazy patient with him but also we are talking 10 years, that's a long time, even the post Shanny years was 6 years.  That's plenty.  If you need 3 years, I can get that.  Maybe even 4.  But 6-10 years is getting a bit crazy.    

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

This is Breer talking about Cleveland.  In theory, hire the best GM and stay out of their way.  And indeed that has worked in plenty of other places if given enough time.  The problem in Cleveland is you got an owner similar to the one we got.  What's said below is similar to what's been said about Dan. 

 

I think with an owner like that, maybe a strong GM with clear separation of powers doesn't work like it would in other places because the owner ends up adding gasoline to the fire when they are divides.  So a coach centric approach where just about everyone in that building owes their job to Rivera may help?

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/01/08/cleveland-browns-head-coach-search-jimmy-haslam-nfl-mailbag

Haslam means well, but he has a reputation of favoring the most recent person he spoke to, and he’s hurt where he’s meant to help in the past. One example: going to low-level assistant coaches and taking suggestions to the head coach, which, while well-intentioned, isn’t doing anyone any good.

 

In 2000, Patriots owner Robert Kraft recognized that giving everyone a shoulder to cry on wasn’t always helpful. Kraft was smart enough to see that he’d undercut Pete Carroll’s authority in that way, and wasn’t going to do it again after hiring Bill Belichick. Maybe Haslam can come to a similar realization.

 

Kraft empowered Belichick. Belichick hired Scott Pioli to run personnel, Charlie Weis to run his offense and Romeo Crennel to run his defense. Belichick knew he had a chance there because he knew the guys he was bringing aboard. Twenty years later, Belichick has continued to promote from within, and move people through the organization, as he’s lost guys like those three, because he values organizational alignment.

 

It’s time for Haslam to value alignment the same way, and this isn’t even about who he hires to be his next coach. It’s about giving Josh McDaniels or Kevin Stefanski or Jim Schwartz or whoever else it might be the best chance, by surrounding them with people they trust and getting out of the way.

 

That won’t guarantee championships, of course. But it’ll give the Browns a chance and address the biggest flaw in Haslam’s stewardship of the team. The team has time to look at candidates and decide not just who’ll be the best on Sunday, but whose overall vision they believe in deeply enough to hire completely and fully around it. Then, maybe alignment becomes more than a term to use after firing everyone.

Then, we’ll have actual proof that they’ve learned from this mess of the last eight years.

[Voice_of_Reason]

19 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Well, that's mitigated to a degree when the GM has final say over the 90, draft and FA during the offseason. He can get rid of those guys at any time he wants, essentially. So I don't mind it at all. 

Yeah, I disagree because I don't think the GM would actually cut the guy the coach really likes during the off-season.  For example, back to my favorite example, it would have been hard to argue that Grant wasn't one of the top 8-10 receivers you would bring into camp. 

 

Now, here's the counter-argument to my argument, and if THIS happens, I would be both elated and also think it would work out great: The GM, because they are good at their jobs in the draft and FA, don't even give the coach the opportunity to pencil in a guy like Grant as a starter, because they have other obviously better options.  One of the problems with the Grant situation, and what irked Scot McLoughan who wanted to keep (I think it was Davis) over Grant, is there really wasn't an obvious better choice, and you allowed the coach (or in this case, the coach and some combination of GM/FO, whatever) to go with the "safer" pick.

 

However, if the top 3-4 guys are more obviously "good" and you're arguing about the last 5 guys on the roster who are going to be inactive anyway, I care MUCH less.

 

Our problem has been that the GM/FO basically hasn't provided a whole heck of a lot of talent, and so the coaches (or whoever made the final decision, and I really do believe it was collaborative, at least initially between Jay and the FO, with Jay getting quite a strong voice, though that changed over time), went with the "safer" and more comfortable pick.

 

If there is more talent to choose from, these things become less of an issue. We're just going to have to see how it plays out.  

 

However, let's take a hypothetical scenario, let's say Ron Rivera is really high on Bostic.  Really thinks he's an answer at MLB.  And by all accounts, he's fine.  He's not a stud, he's not a dud.  He's a good player.  But the GM thinks Player X who is either signed as a FA or drafted is a better option.  Would the GM cut Bostic, essentially going against Rivera's wishes, in the off-season to remove the temptation?  Practically speaking, I just don't see that happening. In any organization.  I don't see Lynch cutting one of Kyle's favorite guys either.  They'd keep both and let it play out in training camp.  

 

19 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

I don't really agree with this take on things, but I'd rather not get into it as it'll take up this entire thread if I focused on where I think you had it wrong on these issues. Water under the bridge. But I'll just say this, Grant, for instance, hung around for the duration of his rookie contract, that's it.

We're never going to agree on this, so it's better just left alone.  I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go into it either.   

 

19 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

But, yeah, in season, I don't mind coaches having final say over the 53. I think it helps with being able to discipline players, control who gets playing time, and scheming around the guys you want with some semblance of consistency. 

I place A LOT of stock in the cut from 90 to 53.  I think we've let some pretty quality guys go for reasons passing understanding.  So, in my ideal world, the cut from 90 to 53 is a complete collaboration between coach and GM.  Somebody has to have the final vote.  I would PREFER it be the GM than the coach, but I think with the right people it can, and has, worked either way.

 

In season, the coach ABSOLUTELY needs to control the game-day 46.  Period-the-end.  

 

If there are roster moves to be made, most likely it's a collaboration because the GM/scouts will know who are the guys they can pick from, then I have no problem having the coach pick in-season.  

 

19 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

The loyalty issue is real, but as long as the GM has final say during the offseason it shouldn't affect things for long. If a GM feels like a coach is blind regarding a player, he can move on from him during the offseason and that'd be within his rights. Do you really want to do that in the middle of a season when a coach is trusting in that dude to help him in a certain way? I don't know... I think that's where the "collaborative" part has to come in. 

Again, that's good in theory, but I just don't see it as being practical.  And if the GM releases the "soft spot" guy during the off-season, the coach (and staff) might get really ticked off and that is the type of thing which can start a turf war, which is counter-productive to everything.  I've seen it in my business life.  A well intentioned removing of temptation  resulted in a holy war which sunk our entire division.  

 

19 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I get it, and I probably prefer it this way, too... but, I don't know, I see the positives with it, as well. If anything, it automatically gives the coach some level of autonomy on the matter, which would help with fostering a healthier, mutually beneficial, relationship versus a GM just becoming a total dictator and refusing to budge on anything. Now, that happening would be a detriment even if the GM had that say over everything... but I think it just sets it up to avoid that potential issue in an official manner, if that makes sense. 

There is a point when structure ends and the people side of things takes over.  If you have a good structure, AND good people, you get a lot farther.  

 

And I should point out, coaches aren't the only ones with blind spots.  It works both ways.  

 

Ideally, the opposite can say, "Dude.  You've got a blind spot.  He's just not that good.  You've got to come to grips with that."  And the primary has enough respect for the guy that they take it into consideration.  

 

19 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I agree, but I think you're giving that final say over the 53 too much weight. I mean, think about it like this, he only has final say over the 53 HIS GM GAVE HIM. It's not like they're his guys exclusively. The only way he really can be at odds with the GM is if the GM recognizes, during the season, he made a mistake about a player (good or bad) whereas the coach doesn't see it and sticks to the initial evaluation and, therefore, the predetermined role for said player. 

Yeah, I put a lot of stock in the 90 to 53. Maybe too much.  The top of the roster really isn't that controversial.  But I'd argue that championships are won with the bottom part of the roster as well, because that's where your depth and ST comes from.  And it's also where your growth comes from for a year or two down the road.  So, yeah, I put a lot of stock in it.  I'm not saying the 53rd player is as important as the starting QB, but if you're really going to be a SB contending team, the whole thing is important.

 

Again, if it's collaborative, and there is open communication across the board, and people are able to have the tough conversations, a lot of this solves itself.  Maybe Ron and whoever the GM is have such a similar world view it doesn't matter.  

 

Time will tell.  

 

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Listening to a host of Carolina reporters talk about Rivera, if we want to see the days of Gibbs touting Thrash as a true Redskin or Jay touting Grant, etc ending -- that's unlikely happening.  

 

Some who covered Rivera said he's very loyal and often to a fault who will stick to players who might be struggling on the field but because he goes way back with them or has a personal affinity to them -- he will keep playing them at the expense of a potentially better player on the bench.   So the description they were giving is Rivera is the type to have his James Thrash and Ryan Grant types where some will shake their heads and think what gives? 

That's terrifying. Unless it's just working through a slump.  Which I can live with. Otherwise, eeegads.  

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I know that style was a pet peeve of  @Voice_of_Reason but from what's been described by those who covered him be ready to see that dynamic if anything doubled up as opposed to going away.  It personally never bothered me.  In my work situations there are certain people who I have special affection and enjoy working with even if they aren't the best at what they do and sometimes the way they help me isn't totally obvious to outsiders.  So I get that mindset.  It doesn't bother me.

I was bitten a long time ago in my work life by choosing a person who I was close to who I had leaned on previously, I knew their limitations, and I thought I could work with them, rather than getting a better person for the job.  It ended so badly I almost had to resign and look for another job.  

 

I get the counter-argument, and it's all a matter of degree.  I made a huge mistake, and I have had to live with it, and you could say it set my career back almost 5 years.  

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Every coach has flaws and their own idiosyncratic methods.  The more important dynamic I think Rivera will bring to the table is his gravitas, integrity, mindset.  This team IMO is desperate for a cultural reset.  I was more OK with Jay than most here but I don't think he's a culture setter -- he's more of a go along to get along guy.  I think Rivera is willing to push an overhaul in approach and mindset which should help. 

I really have always liked Ron.  I think he's doing a lot of good things.  Time will tell.

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I think the reason why most suspect Rivera made Dan get rid of Bruce is Bruce would have been the counter to change the culture guy so to speak.  The same dude who said the culture is damned good.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Dan emphasized the culture aspect of Rivera in the press release.  I don't think Dan would know good culture even if it hit him in his face so I'd put money that was all Rivera. 

Dan turned the dagger in Bruce's back with the culture comments.  

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

46 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I place A LOT of stock in the cut from 90 to 53.  I think we've let some pretty quality guys go for reasons passing understanding.  So, in my ideal world, the cut from 90 to 53 is a complete collaboration between coach and GM.  Somebody has to have the final vote.  I would PREFER it be the GM than the coach, but I think with the right people it can, and has, worked either way.

 

 

This is interesting but its also interesting in terms of what happens to the people who we cut from the 90 to 53. Like, I'm a big proponent of us not signing Marshall and keeping Kapri Bibbs during the 2018 season. And I've had similar opinions with players we cut in previous seasons, like Mack Brown. The thing is, we could keep Mack on the PS for a while so if the Coach or GM didn't think there was a roster spot for him we could still develop him in some way. We were doing the same thing with guys like Davis, Harris, Flanagan, Casey Dunn, Sims, etc. Heck, even Matt Ioannidis was cut to keep others on the DL like Lanier initially. 

 

But if we're on a one year job type thing were we're in the races to win it all, I can see the letting go of a bunch of young guys. And I think this is where the whole Bruce Culture thing comes into play because in all the Gruden years we were in some false narrative where we the fans knew that at best we were competing for a low playoff spot (maybe 10 wins) but not really a threat to do anything in the playoffs. But the false narrative of 9, 8, 7, and 7 wins allowed the coaches and front office to both buy into some belief that we were only a few moves away. This becomes a bad thing because we wind up looking for who's the best right now instead of who has the growth potential to be the best. 

 

But ideally before we even get to the 90 man roster we're talking about this approach. At the end of a season we sign a bunch of guys to future contracts. Then there's the free agency, the draft, the UDFA period, the post june first period, and the signings after roster cuts. What we often see on this team is that there is little competition up and down the roster, and there is little youth challenging for a spot on the roster.

 

Like at LT, we can say we were developing Christian but he was hurt. Coming into this year we had nothing behind Trent or Moses because Ty was gone. At TE we had Reed and Davis and nothing proven and no young talent who has shown anything. Before this year (so going into 2018) we had no talent behind our starting Guards, to the point where fans were praying that a UDFA who nobody heard of would come in and solidify the position. Same goes with WR going into last year and before. 

 

This is especially true with the roster construction before the promotion of Kyle Smith. But it hasn't gone away. At least now we have a lot of young bodies who could prove potential. And we've done a decent job with the off the street FAs. That was something I liked about the 2017 season where we got guys on the OL who were coming in and playing substantial minutes. Same with RB. But why didn't we have a pipeline established beforehand? Where were these guys in June when we needed a 90 man roster? Why wasn't Nate Orchid in our camp? I don't think its all a Grant / Thrash type situation but I do see guys like Marshall who have a similar property. Why did we keep Doctson so long? Why not cut him when we cut Z. Brown?  

 

I think the 90 man roster needs to be a nice construction of proven vets, proven youth, high potential talent, and pure low cost high payoff type players. But its really bad when a position group is nothing but proven vets (over 30?) and low cost high payoff type players (all unproven UDFAs). Because that makes it a weakness, if not inherently then by injury analysis. Thats how I felt with our CBs this year with Norman, Dunbar and Moreau and little behind them except low draft picks and UDFAs. And sure enough it became a liability 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, I disagree because I don't think the GM would actually cut the guy the coach really likes during the off-season.  For example, back to my favorite example, it would have been hard to argue that Grant wasn't one of the top 8-10 receivers you would bring into camp. 

 

Now, here's the counter-argument to my argument, and if THIS happens, I would be both elated and also think it would work out great: The GM, because they are good at their jobs in the draft and FA, don't even give the coach the opportunity to pencil in a guy like Grant as a starter, because they have other obviously better options.  One of the problems with the Grant situation, and what irked Scot McLoughan who wanted to keep (I think it was Davis) over Grant, is there really wasn't an obvious better choice, and you allowed the coach (or in this case, the coach and some combination of GM/FO, whatever) to go with the "safer" pick.

 

However, if the top 3-4 guys are more obviously "good" and you're arguing about the last 5 guys on the roster who are going to be inactive anyway, I care MUCH less.

 

Our problem has been that the GM/FO basically hasn't provided a whole heck of a lot of talent, and so the coaches (or whoever made the final decision, and I really do believe it was collaborative, at least initially between Jay and the FO, with Jay getting quite a strong voice, though that changed over time), went with the "safer" and more comfortable pick.

 

If there is more talent to choose from, these things become less of an issue. We're just going to have to see how it plays out.  

 

However, let's take a hypothetical scenario, let's say Ron Rivera is really high on Bostic.  Really thinks he's an answer at MLB.  And by all accounts, he's fine.  He's not a stud, he's not a dud.  He's a good player.  But the GM thinks Player X who is either signed as a FA or drafted is a better option.  Would the GM cut Bostic, essentially going against Rivera's wishes, in the off-season to remove the temptation?  Practically speaking, I just don't see that happening. In any organization.  I don't see Lynch cutting one of Kyle's favorite guys either.  They'd keep both and let it play out in training camp.  

Yeah, I mean, you’re arguing yourself here. This is pretty much what I was getting at. Maybe you’re so used to disagreeing with me you forgot what it looks like otherwise. 😛 

 

Final say doesn’t negate collaborating. A big part of why someone like Grant gets as much playing time as he did is because of a failure to bring in better players, as you said here. 
 

Which means that, actually, the final say aspect of it had less to do with it than the fact that the FO didn’t do a better job managing resources and building the team. In fact, the coach wasn’t wrong and “his guy” was the  better option. 
 

So, it feels like you’re saying exactly what I am here but kind of arguing at the same time!?  

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

We're never going to agree on this, so it's better just left alone.  I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go into it either.   

Well, you kind of went into it in the first portion of your post and almost forced me to, as well. But I think if anyone reads closely here they’ll see that, now, you’re saying things that align more with my thinking on this for years than anything you’ve said on it before. 

To be frank, this entire conversation has been refreshing to me because we’re getting into the organizational aspects of everything that usually was downplayed, dismissed or totally ignored before. I’m seeing things being said and focused on that are a major change. 
 

I hope it remains so.  

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I place A LOT of stock in the cut from 90 to 53.  I think we've let some pretty quality guys go for reasons passing understanding.  So, in my ideal world, the cut from 90 to 53 is a complete collaboration between coach and GM.  Somebody has to have the final vote.  I would PREFER it be the GM than the coach, but I think with the right people it can, and has, worked either way.

 

In season, the coach ABSOLUTELY needs to control the game-day 46.  Period-the-end.  

 

If there are roster moves to be made, most likely it's a collaboration because the GM/scouts will know who are the guys they can pick from, then I have no problem having the coach pick in-season.  

Yes... not sure why this was said, that’s pretty much what I was saying. Is there something you think you were arguing against or you were just reiterating? 
 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Again, that's good in theory, but I just don't see it as being practical.  And if the GM releases the "soft spot" guy during the off-season, the coach (and staff) might get really ticked off and that is the type of thing which can start a turf war, which is counter-productive to everything.  I've seen it in my business life.  A well intentioned removing of temptation  resulted in a holy war which sunk our entire division.  

Ok, I’m confused. You say the above which is exactly what I’m saying, but I think you’re conflating final say with a lack of collaboration. 
 

That’s not what final say means. I’ve explained this on multiple occasions. Final say is about one person being able to take into account all the information they’re getting from their peers and subordinates and making a decision from there. Sure, someone is likely to get “ticked off”, but they still have to respect that authority and understand why that guy has final say over them in the first place (which, if you’re hiring wrong in the first place or setting up roles that don’t align properly, can be the problem itself). 
 

So people getting ticked off for not getting their way works both ways. GM can get ticked off if the coach isn’t developing players he believes in, coach can get ticked off if he’s being handed players he can’t develop, etc... 

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

There is a point when structure ends and the people side of things takes over.  If you have a good structure, AND good people, you get a lot farther.  

 

And I should point out, coaches aren't the only ones with blind spots.  It works both ways.  

 

Ideally, the opposite can say, "Dude.  You've got a blind spot.  He's just not that good.  You've got to come to grips with that."  And the primary has enough respect for the guy that they take it into consideration.  

Yes, exactly. See what I mean by how it comes off like you’re arguing against yourself?  
 

I don’t know if you’re quoting me to just add or reiterate what I was saying, or to debate it. I can’t tell, but if it’s the former my apologies. If it’s the latter I’m thoroughly confused and you should’ve been saying “yeah, I agree” instead of starting it off with stuff like “good in theory, but not practical”, only to say what I was in the end. 
 

Or do you think I was suggesting anything else? Structure matters, the people matter more. You need the structure to be aligned well and you need a good hiring process that finds the right people to fulfill those roles properly within said structure. 
 

It works both ways, hence, why it’s ok to have the GM with final say over the 90, draft and FA, but the coach have final say over the 53, or active 46, during the season. That could mean the same thing, by the way, and often does. If you have control over the active 46, you have control over who plays and the depth chart, you essentially have control over the 53 during the season.
 

That final say is still regarding everyone the GM brought in or retained himself.
 

But, like I already said, I do prefer it the other way. I just like the experts being in charge of their particular expertise. But I see the positives of doing it this way, too. Which you’re reiterating here when saying that it comes down to how the people work together. 
 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, I put a lot of stock in the 90 to 53. Maybe too much.  The top of the roster really isn't that controversial.  But I'd argue that championships are won with the bottom part of the roster as well, because that's where your depth and ST comes from.  And it's also where your growth comes from for a year or two down the road.  So, yeah, I put a lot of stock in it.  I'm not saying the 53rd player is as important as the starting QB, but if you're really going to be a SB contending team, the whole thing is important.

 

Again, if it's collaborative, and there is open communication across the board, and people are able to have the tough conversations, a lot of this solves itself.  Maybe Ron and whoever the GM is have such a similar world view it doesn't matter.  

 

Time will tell.  

I’d argue the same. And I have for years. It’s all important. It’s vital for someone qualified with legitimate personnel chops to have final say over the roster. All this other stuff is minor in comparison to that. 
 

The collaborative and open communication stuff is vital no matter how it’s structured. The GM who has final say doesn’t and can’t mean he is avoiding the need to work with everyone unless he’s an idiot. 
 

I think Ron seems to understand he needs that set up, but I was disheartened by the presser because it seemed to have went against that. Maybe I misunderstood and that’s how it gets structured in the end, anyway, and all they meant by “coach-centric” was that Ron would lead the way initially and with the hires, but wouldn’t retain final say over everything once it was all set up. 
 

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

This is Breer talking about Cleveland.  In theory, hire the best GM and stay out of their way.  And indeed that has worked in plenty of other places if given enough time.  The problem in Cleveland is you got an owner similar to the one we got.  What's said below is similar to what's been said about Dan. 

 

I think with an owner like that, maybe a strong GM with clear separation of powers doesn't work like it would in other places because the owner ends up adding gasoline to the fire when they are divides.  So a coach centric approach where just about everyone in that building owes their job to Rivera may help?

I keep going back to wondering what’s the difference? If the owner is like that, wouldn’t he be doing the same thing but, instead of with the GM who everyone owes their job to, it’d be with the coach? 
 

To me, the bottom line is that the owner needs to be smart and be able to discern the truth. I don’t think that has much of anything to do with the structure. I think they’re two separate issues. 
 

Pats and Seahawks remain the only examples of sustainable success with a coach who is also the top exec. The Pats are the exception to the exception because of Brady. The Seahawks also have automatic benefits that elevate everyone there just by default, like their home field advantage for instance. But Schnieder is rightly recognized as the architect of that team, so one can argue it’s an empty phrase when saying Carroll has “final say”. 
 

So I get where you’re coming from and I think there’s something to it. If an owner has the habit of undermining his coaches but not his executives, making his coach the top executive can be a way to stop it. I just think that’s really a criticism of the owner and a damn shame if that’s the only way he can attempt to control himself, lol. It just means we’re stuck having to follow a model with more examples of failure than sustainable success compared to the other models. 😕 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

I keep going back to wondering what’s the difference? If the owner is like that, wouldn’t he be doing the same thing but, instead of with the GM who everyone owes their job to, it’d be with the coach? 
 

To me, the bottom line is that the owner needs to be smart and be able to discern the truth. I don’t think that has much of anything to do with the structure. I think they’re two separate issues. 
 

Pats and Seahawks remain the only examples of sustainable success with a coach who is also the top exec. The Pats are the exception to the exception because of Brady. The Seahawks also have automatic benefits that elevate everyone there just by default, like their home field advantage for instance. But Schnieder is rightly recognized as the architect of that team, so one can argue it’s an empty phrase when saying Carroll has “final say”. 
 

So I get where you’re coming from and I think there’s something to it. If an owner has the habit of undermining his coaches but not his executives, making his coach the top executive can be a way to stop it. I just think that’s really a criticism of the owner and a damn shame if that’s the only way he can attempt to control himself, lol. It just means we’re stuck having to follow a model with more examples of failure than sustainable success compared to the other models. 😕 

 

I think Dan would have more proximity to the GM than the head coach.  The head coach is coaching practice and running the team.  The GM is often watching practice with Dan and hanging with him on the sidelines before the game, sometimes during the game, and afterwards.  Socially I think Dan is much more within view of the GM than the HC.

 

And hearing the stories about Dan including from Cerrato, I get the strong impression that Dan rarely messes with the roster and coaching.  His thing is personnel.  His temptation is to mess with the groceries.  So I think the GM in the danger spot with him. 

 

Loverro was talking this weekend about the Friday pizza-beer parties that Dan and Bruce would have.   Loverro mentioned he heard Shanny wasn't loving that was going on.  The head coaches I presume are game planning during the week mostly versus eating pizza and having beers with Dan. 

 

Dan was close with Joe Gibbs but it sounded like it was a more professional type of relationship. Rivera strikes me that although he's a different kind of dude from Gibbs -- he is still a good guy who is more likely to bring out the better side of Dan or at a minimum not feed his darkest impulses. 

 

I do agree with your point that a stronger GM is better than a coach centric model.  But I wonder if here a coach centric model works better.  And my point is 100% colored by Dan's immaturity.  I've really given up on using linear logic with Dan.  So I am looking at it via the model of how things have gone south in that building and the core of it seemed to be Dan turning the GM into his BFF where that ultimately led to dissension.   So a GM that is beholden to Rivera might work better.  I'd add i trust Rivera over Dan to find a good GM.

 

So i am not really arguing your point.  It's me throwing the towel in with Dan and trying to come up with a model that might mitigate the inevitable dysfunction that comes with him. 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I think Dan would have more proximity to the GM than the head coach.  The head coach is coaching practice and running the team.  The GM is often watching practice with Dan and hanging with him on the sidelines before the game, sometimes during the game, and afterwards.  Socially I think Dan is much more within view of the GM than the HC.

 

And hearing the stories about Dan including from Cerrato, I get the strong impression that Dan rarely messes with the roster and coaching.  His thing is personnel.  His temptation is to mess with the groceries.  So I think the GM in the danger spot with him. 

Those are great points. Coaches sort of have a default barrier there because of what they do day to day. And we don’t hear much about Dan getting involved in game plans, scheme, and whatnot... though we do have the infamous “Mike Nolan vanilla ice cream” stuff, lol. But that was a long time ago. I did recently read that Dan wanted to go back to the 4-3 himself... but who knows how much priority was on that. 
 

I’d even add that, since they’re given way more attention by the media, and you got cameras and reporters around them constantly, Dan would naturally be more inclined to stay away from that while with a GM that obstacle isn’t nearly as prevalent. 
 

But it highlights the amount of stuff that’s going to be on Ron’s plate, too. He’s got to do all that and still be an executive on top of it. He’s got to do the micro-managing coaches are involved in while looking at it on a macro level. And then he’s got to manage Dan on that level, as well. 
 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Loverro was talking this weekend about the Friday pizza-beer parties that Dan and Bruce would have.   Loverro mentioned he heard Shanny wasn't loving that was going on.  The head coaches I presume are game planning during the week mostly versus eating pizza and having beers with Dan. 

That is so ridiculous, but it fits.  
 

I think, however, that a legitimately qualified GM would be just as busy and act just as professionally as any coach, especially during the offseason. 
 

I think the problem here is we had Bruce and Vinny instead of a legitimately qualified GM. So I’m not sure the examples we gain from them are worthy of deriving anything.  

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Dan was close with Joe Gibbs but it sounded like it was a more professional type of relationship. Rivera strikes me that although he's a different kind of dude from Gibbs -- he is still a good guy who is more likely to bring out the better side of Dan or at a minimum not feed his darkest impulses. 

Yeah, I totally buy that, as well. One of my favorite aspects of the hire is just how respected and classy Rivera is. That doesn’t really mean much in terms of automatically winning, as we’ve seen he’s just as susceptible to losing seasons as most coaches are, but that is especially important at Redskins Park. 
 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I do agree with your point that a stronger GM is better than a coach centric model.  But I wonder if here a coach centric model works better.  And my point is 100% colored by Dan's immaturity.  I've really given up on using linear logic with Dan.  So I am looking at it via the model of how things have gone south in that building and the core of it seemed to be Dan turning the GM into his BFF where that ultimately led to dissension.   So a GM that is beholden to Rivera might work better.  I'd add i trust Rivera over Dan to find a good GM.

 

So i am not really arguing your point.  It's me throwing the towel in with Dan and trying to come up with a model that might mitigate the inevitable dysfunction that comes with him. 

Yeah, I think it’s a fascinating conversation and one I’ve thoroughly enjoyed. 
 

It’s just sad we even have to think like this, but alas, we are where we are. And I’m all for hoping for the best. I don’t know if I can stomach witnessing another villain’s origin story.  

[KDawg]

I don't understand why so many are so rooted into the whole GM-centric model when it's been proven that there is no one way to win and build a franchise.

 

Kansas City and San Francisco are more "coach-centric". Tennessee and Green Bay are more "GM-centric". 

 

I think you guys are honestly digging into the nitty gritty of this, which has provided some outstanding conversation, but I think you're missing the forest through the trees a little here. The model itself does not make much of a difference. The ability to implement it with qualified people and stick to the plan and see it through, though, is the cornerstone of any franchise building model. 

 

I think your model should be based on who your best qualified person is. The person who has X and O knowledge, pairs it with player/asset management and understands the importance of organizational structure. If its the head coach, then you roll coach-centric. If it's the GM... GM centric.

 

Both both models should be run very similarly.

 

The only difference is the hierarchy in which the systems are run and who picks the groceries (and, for clarity, when I say "groceries" I mean the personnel to steer the ship, not necessarily the players [which should always be a partnership between coach and GM]).

 

Otherwise they should operate in a fairly similar fashion.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I

Both both models should be run very similarly.

 

The only difference is the hierarchy in which the systems are run and who picks the groceries.

 

Otherwise they should operate in a fairly similar fashion.

 

I am OK with a coach centric model as long as the coach doesn't become the defacto personnel guy ala Shanny.  If the coach simply hires the GM and lets him do his thing for the most part like Kyle I am cool with it.

 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am OK with a coach centric model as long as the coach doesn't become the defacto personnel guy ala Shanny.  If the coach simply hires the GM and lets him do his thing for the most part like Kyle I am cool with it.

 

 

But isn't that the basis of almost every successful model?

 

GM or coach centric?

 

These guys stay in their lanes. It's who decides what is best for the franchise by hiring/firing that is the significant difference between the two. 

 

To me, coach centric/GM centric is a similar conversation to "Is the 4-3 or 3-4 a better defense?"

 

The answer is complicated but it boils down to a simple, "well... it depends".

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

But isn't that the basis of almost every successful model?

 

GM or coach centric?

 

These guys stay in their lanes. It's who decides what is best for the franchise by hiring/firing that is the significant difference between the two. 

 

To me, coach centric/GM centric is a similar conversation to "Is the 4-3 or 3-4 a better defense?"

 

The answer is complicated but it boils down to a simple, "well... it depends".

 

From what I could tell.

 

A.  You got In the past, some coaches, Bill Parcells for a phase (he coined the line if you want me to cook the meal let me shop for the groceries). Mike Shanahan among some others from what I recall who wanted to be the defacto GM and that's what they were.   They would use scouts to help out and personnel people but they want to do their own evaluations and were the defacto GM. 

 

B.  It's become in vogue now to say that coaches have too much on their plate to serve both masters and from what I can tell coach centric now doesn't mean per se that the head coach turns into the GM but its more that they pick the GM and work more closely with the GM but they aren't so much watching film and telling the GM I want this guy and I got final say, do it. It's more that they want the GM beholden to them and in synch with them versus having a divide.  

 

If its B, I am ok with it.  And it might even be the best model to deal with Dan specifically.  If it's old school A style, I don't like it.  As some said when Shanny got fired in Denver -- even though the head coach Shanny was fine but GM Shanny got the HC Shanny canned.  Their thought good HC bad GM.  From what some have said about Rivera including Joe Banner who has worked closely with him -- Rivera doesn't know much about evaluating college players and picking personnel, that's not his gig.   So if he tries to make that his gig and develop that skill at 58, then I don't love it.  But I get the impression Rivera doesn't plan to do that and he will allow the GM to shop for the groceries but just weigh in some especially as to what type of players he wants.   That's fine with me.

 

I understand the point about the GM centric model.  I've advocated before for this model.  I like the fact that the GM is focused on just this one thing and can have the long view which the HC doesn't always have. But I am ok with the coach centric one as long as the coach doesn't do it like Shanny did here.  That's why I mention the Marty version of it.  Marty brought in his own GM, John Schneider, but as far as I can tell he let Schneider do his thing.

[KDawg]

19 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

From what I could tell.

 

A.  You got In the past, some coaches, Bill Parcells for a phase (he coined the line if you want me to cook the meal let me shop for the groceries). Mike Shanahan among some others from what I recall who wanted to be the defacto GM and that's what they were.   They would use scouts to help out and personnel people but they want to do their own evaluations and were the defacto GM. 

 

B.  It's become in vogue now to say that coaches have too much on their plate to serve both masters and from what I can tell coach centric now doesn't mean per se that the head coach turns into the GM but its more that they pick the GM and work more closely with the GM but they aren't so much watching film and telling the GM I want this guy and I got final say, do it. It's more that they want the GM beholden to them and in synch with them versus having a divide.  

 

If its B, I am ok with it.  And it might even be the best model to deal with Dan specifically.  If it's old school A style, I don't like it.  As some said when Shanny got fired in Denver -- even though the head coach Shanny was fine but GM Shanny got the HC Shanny canned.  Their thought good HC bad GM.  From what some have said about Rivera including Joe Banner who has worked closely with him -- Rivera doesn't know much about evaluating college players and picking personnel, that's not his gig.   So if he tries to make that his gig and develop that skill at 58, then I don't love it.  But I get the impression Rivera doesn't plan to do that and he will allow the GM to shop for the groceries but just weigh in some especially as to what type of players he wants.   That's fine with me.

 

I understand the point about the GM centric model.  I've advocated before for this model.  I like the fact that the GM is focused on just this one thing and can have the long view which the HC doesn't always have. But I am ok with the coach centric one as long as the coach doesn't do it like Shanny did here.  That's why I mention the Marty version of it.  Marty brought in his own GM, John Schneider, but as far as I can tell he let Schneider do his thing.

 

I would argue A: Isn't a  coach centric model. It's a total control environment. Similarly, I would argue that a GM who makes gameday decisions isn't a GM centric model, but a monarchy as well. Monarchies are tricky because there are only a select handful of people who can successfully run one. But Parcells always relied heavily on his assistant coaches and then **** on them all the time to motivate them. He was up Belichick's ass all the time, but he leaned heavily on him to run a good portion of the team while Parcells was doing the other stuff, for instance. So it kind of "worked".

 

What we're talking about here isn't a monarchy leadership structure. The way it's been described, the primary difference between GM and coach centric is who sits atop the pyramid. 

 

This is clearly a B structure. It's been outright stated that Rivera is looking for a GM. He's also stated he only wants full control over the game day 46. I don't believe for a second that he's duping us and planning on going Emperor Palpatine on us, but anyone who thinks he won't be involved in personnel decisions is crazy... The HC and GM should always have a say, with the tie breaker going to the GM... No matter the model. 

 

Again, in my opinion... GM/Coach centric is the same thing. It' just who is doing the hiring/firing that is the only difference.

 

Monarchies (Shanahan, Parcells, Belichick) are an entirely different animal. 

 

I'd argue that the monarchy structure is only advisable at this point if you have Bill Belichick. 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

I don't understand why so many are so rooted into the whole GM-centric model when it's been proven that there is no one way to win and build a franchise.

 

Kansas City and San Francisco are more "coach-centric". Tennessee and Green Bay are more "GM-centric". 

 

Not to sound brash, but I don’t think you’re following my posts correctly, then. 
 

In fact, I’ve stated multiple times now that the NFL is owner-centric in reality. It’s really not about that. 
 

What we are, and should be focused on, is the organizational structure. That absolutely matters. You want the qualified individuals in roles they can fulfill relative to their expertise and without unwarranted interference. 
 

Which is what you’re sort of saying here later on, and what we pretty much all are. 

And you keep getting it wrong with the Chiefs and Niners. They aren’t “Coach-centric”, not according to how we’re defining it. They both have GMs that have final say over the roster, draft and FA. They both report to the owner or top exec, not the coach.  You can’t call that “coach-centric” unless you’re bringing your own definition, which changes the entire conversation. 
 

 There isn’t that much of a difference, if there is any, with their structure than in Tennessee or Green Bay. That is, unless, you think whomever was hired first is automatically the center of everything. I mean, that’s crazy to me, but I can’t stop you from looking at it that way. I don’t think anyone does. 
 

But, yes, there is a way that’s been proven. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions for a reason. I think it’s important to recognize patterns and successful models for what they are. I think it’s also important to recognize exceptional cases for what they are. 

 

I don’t think it’s ok to make claims like it’s all the same just because of a couple of exceptions. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Again, in my opinion... GM/Coach centric is the same thing. It' just who is doing the hiring/firing that is the only difference.

Ok, just saw this. I guess it makes sense now why you’re saying that. I figured that’s what was happening. 
 

Honestly, that’s not the definition we’re giving it, so you’re kind of inserting your own here and then telling us how to feel about it. 
 

I don’t think there’s a single soul around the league who looks at it like that. It’s about how things are structured and who reports to whom. That’s what we’re discussing here. Not who hires whom first, which is a small part of it and has a lot to do with timing versus a “centric” model. 
 

If the GM and coach both report to the owner or another top exec, it’s not “coach-centric”. I don’t know how you can claim that, the coach doesn’t have the power to fire who he wants, neither does the GM. If the Coach reports to the GM, then it’s “GM-centric”. If the GM reports to the coach, only then can it be “coach-centric”. 
 

As far as I know and no one has ever pointed out another example, there are only two examples of this in the NFL right now. That’s the Seahawks and Patriots. That’s it. 
 

Everywhere else either the GM and HC both report to the owner as equals with final say over their respective departments or the HC reports to the GM. Who hired whom first isn’t a factor here, as you have multiple instances where that structure exists whether the coach or GM was hired first. 
 

That’s the understanding of it I believe we’re all operating on here when discussing the matter. You’re introducing another way of looking at “centric” models that we weren’t. 

[KDawg]

15 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

What we are, and should be focused on, is the organizational structure. That absolutely matters. You want the qualified individuals in roles they can fulfill relative to their expertise and without unwarranted interference. 

 

And that's all it's about.

 

Quote

And you keep getting it wrong with the Chiefs and Niners. They aren’t “Coach-centric”, not according to how we’re defining it. They both have GMs that have final say over the roster, draft and FA.

They both report to the owner or top exec, not the coach.  You can’t call that “coach-centric” unless you’re bringing your own definition, which changes the entire conversation.

 

I don't define coach-centric, as I said above, as Shanahan-esque. I define it as the coach is the guy on top of the hierarchy. Not that he fills all roles. A guy who fills all decision making roles is a monarchy in structure. In my opinion, the mark has been missed with what "coach" and "GM" centric is throughout this thread. But like I said, that is simply my opinion. 
 

Quote

There isn’t that much of a difference, if there is any, with their structure than in Tennessee or Green Bay. That is, unless, you think whomever was hired first is automatically the center of everything. I mean, that’s crazy to me, but I can’t stop you from looking at it that way. I don’t think anyone does.

 

The guy who fills out the personnel is the guy who is on top of the hierarchy... he is not the "center of everything".
 

Quote

I don’t think it’s ok to make claims like it’s all the same just because of a couple of exceptions.

 

Not sure who's doing that. So I'm not sure the relevance of this statement. 
 

Quote

Ok, just saw this. I guess it makes sense now why you’re saying that. I figured that’s what was happening. 

 

Honestly, that’s not the definition we’re giving it, so you’re kind of inserting your own here and then telling us how to feel about it.

 

Except I'm not telling anyone how to feel about anything. We can like and dislike many different ideas and strategies. I just think you guys are missing the forest through the trees, much like you seem to think I am. That's the world today for ya! To be clear, you guys have defined and labeled terms and used them how you feel appropriate, and so have I. But in order for me to talk about the strategies that I have been touting as a coach-centric model, I have to defend my stance within the terms I believe them to be, rather than lean on your own personal definitions, which do not coincide with my beliefs. What you call coach centric, I call a monarchical structure. We may/may not be talking about the same things, but now that we have defined the terms we are using personally its easier to parse through our points of view and understand each other. 
 

Quote

I don’t think there’s a single soul around the league who looks at it like that. It’s about how things are structured and who reports to whom. That’s what we’re discussing here. Not who hires whom first, which is a small part of it and has a lot to do with timing versus a “centric” model.

 

See above. 
 

Quote

If the GM and coach both report to the owner or another top exec, it’s not “coach-centric”. I don’t know how you can claim that, the coach doesn’t have the power to fire who he wants, neither does the GM. If the Coach reports to the GM, then it’s “GM-centric”. If the GM reports to the coach, only then can it be “coach-centric”.

 

This is exactly what I've been saying. It's about who is on top of the hierarchy. Coach-centric means its the coach. GM-centric means its the GM. It does not mean the coach controls the personnel by themselves. It does not mean the GM makes game day decisions. But in reality, as you stated earlier, the owner can destroy anything they want at the drop of a hat. But for the sake of this conversation, the owner is literally always capable of that. So we dismiss the owner as the variable and look towards the rest of the structure. 

 

I don't care who reports to who. 

 

But the guy who picks the personnel (specifically front office personnel here), obviously is higher up the food chain and is responsible for any mistakes the people he hand picked make. 
 

Quote

That’s the understanding of it I believe we’re all operating on here when discussing the matter. You’re introducing another way of looking at “centric” models that we weren’t.

 

It's the one I've been describing all along, so I'm not just now introducing anything

[TSO]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

And that's all it's about.

Yup, which is what our conversation was revolving around.  

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

I don't define coach-centric, as I said above, as Shanahan-esque. I define it as the coach is the guy on top of the hierarchy. Not that he fills all roles. A guy who fills all decision making roles is a monarchy in structure. In my opinion, the mark has been missed with what "coach" and "GM" centric is throughout this thread. But like I said, that is simply my opinion. 

Well, top of the hierarchy means everyone reports to him, right? That’s what organizational hierarchy means. 
 

I feel like you’re missing the mark here, not us. There aren’t many examples of that in the league where the coach sits at the top of the hierarchy and the GM reports to him that ends up in success. That’s the point. 
 

And no one said that the idea is they’ll automatically fill all the roles, it’s about who is evaluating whom and who has power over whom. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

The guy who fills out the personnel is the guy who is on top of the hierarchy... he is not the "center of everything".

 

Not really. He is until he isn’t.

 

You’re assuming that remains the case, or that the hires being made aren’t a collaborative effort with the owner or the top exec, anyway. 

 

But the hierarchy changes as soon as the roles are defined by who reports to whom. 
 

It doesn’t actually matter who was hired first or who was leading the hires themselves. If the GM and coach are both reporting to the owner, they are considered equals in the hierarchy. That’s how it’s always been understood. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Not sure who's doing that. So I'm not sure the relevance of this statement. 

I believed you were when you said our entire conversation was missing the forest for the trees and made the claim that the model itself doesn’t make a difference, or that “it’s been proven there’s no one way to win”. It felt dismissive, to be honest. 
 

But after reading more of what you’re saying, you’re just defining things differently that we are. 
 

Bottom line? It’s important to have a GM, that he’s qualified, that he has final say over the roster, draft and FA, and that he’s not beholden to the coach. There is no argument there and that is what we’re referring to as the best model when discussing the various ones.
 

That is what the vast majority of successful franchises have. And I think it’s important to recognize that and, if we don’t end up with it, understand why it’s concerning. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

But in order for me to talk about the strategies that I have been touting as a coach-centric model, I have to defend my stance within the terms I believe them to be, rather than lean on your own personal definitions, which do not coincide with my beliefs. What you call coach centric, I call a monarchical structure. We may/may not be talking about the same things, but now that we have defined the terms we are using personally its easier to parse through our points of view and understand each other. 

Well, the problem is you’re defining it unlike how most do, and unlike how we were, which changed the parameters of the discussion. You can’t defend something we weren’t attacking based on our definition. 
 

But you’re absolutely right that now with the defined terms we can parse through our views and understand each other much better.  
 

Either way, the bottom line remains no matter how anyone defines or labels it. The pattern remains. The preferred, most successful method of organizing in the NFL is you want a qualified GM not beholden to his coach with final say over the roster. We all agree with this. Doesn’t matter how you arrive to it, or who hires whom first. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

It's the one I've been describing all along, so I'm not just now introducing anything

Not really. We were defining “coach-centric”, as most have, to mean that the coach is at the top of the hierarchy (outside of the owner, of course) and the GM reports to him. That includes both the Shanahan/Belichick model as well as the Carroll model. The emphasis for us was about the hierarchy/structure, i.e. who reports to whom. 
 

You defined it differently and want to separate it. You also included the Chiefs and Niners as examples of a coach-centric model when that is not how we were defining it, as the coach doesn’t have power over the GM within the organization, regardless of who hired whom first. They’re both equally reporting to the Owner/top exec and are not beholden to each other. 
 

So, yeah, that is introducing a new way of looking at the models.
 

But, like you said, the important thing is we understand that now and can parse through our views better. I think that’s what a lot of this conversation was about, anyway, and I don’t think any forest was missed. 😛   

[KDawg]

12 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

Yup, which is what our conversation was revolving around.  

 

 

Well, you guys sure do use a lot of words about other things to get there

 

Quote

Well, top of the hierarchy means everyone reports to him, right? That’s what organizational hierarchy means.

 

yes and no. In this sense, he's the one picking the groceries (front office personnel). But that doesn't mean they ultimately report to him. It does mean he is responsible for them, though. His groceries. His responsibility!
 

Quote

I feel like you’re missing the mark here, not us. There aren’t many examples of that in the league where the coach sits at the top of the hierarchy and the GM reports to him that ends up in success. That’s the point.

 

Of course you feel like I'm missing the mark. And I feel like you are. We wouldn't be having this conversation if we agreed with each other ya big lug.
 

Quote

You’re assuming that remains the case, or that the hires being made aren’t a collaborative effort with the owner or the top exec, anyway.

 

Everything should be a collaboration. But Rivera is obviously, going by who has been hired, the man at the forefront as far as office personnel goes.

 

Quote

It doesn’t actually matter who was hired first or who was leading the hires themselves. If the GM and coach are both reporting to the owner, they are considered equals in the hierarchy. That’s how it’s always been understood.

 

We disagree here. And will continue to. If I pick the groceries and the groceries are stale and I came home to the ex, back when we were together, I'd be responsible for that mistake. Not her, even though she told me to get the damn lettuce.

 

And trust me, I'd hear about it!
 

Quote

I believed you were when you said our entire conversation was missing the forest for the trees and made the claim that the model itself doesn’t make a difference, or that “it’s been proven there’s no one way to win”. It felt dismissive, to be honest.

 

How you feel is not up to me to guide. It wasn't dismissive. It was that I thought you missed the forest through the trees in my opinion. It wasn't that your discussion doesn't have merit
 

Quote

But after reading more of what you’re saying, you’re just defining things differently that we are.

 

It has become very clear this is the case. I blame you guys, of course
 

Quote

Bottom line? It’s important to have a GM, that he’s qualified, that he has final say over the roster, draft and FA, and that he’s not beholden to the coach. There is no argument there and that is what we’re referring to as the best model when discussing the various ones.

 

Overall we're in agreement it seems. Maybe you do see the forest through the pines!
 

Quote

Well, the problem is you’re defining it unlike how most do, and unlike how we were, which changed the parameters of the discussion. You can’t defend something we weren’t attacking based on our definition.

 

As one of the foremost proponents of the "coach-centric" model here, though, what I have described is what I've been using the term "coach-centric" from day one as. So it is relevant! 
 

Quote

But you’re absolutely right

 

Nice for you to recognize that. Can you call my exes and let them know, too, please?
 

Quote

So, yeah, that is introducing a new way of looking at the models.

 

It's not, though, as this is how I've always defined it in my posts on the matter! It may be new to you, though, because perhaps you didn't read my posts. Which I don't blame you, I often don't read my own posts.
 

Quote

 and I don’t think any forest was missed.

😛   

 

It would be if the quarterback from Minnesota was throwing a ball at it...

 

 

I crack myself up.

[TSO]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Well, you guys sure do use a lot of words about other things to get there

Can’t argue there.  

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

yes and no. In this sense, he's the one picking the groceries (front office personnel). But that doesn't mean they ultimately report to him. It does mean he is responsible for them, though. His groceries. His responsibility! 

Hmmm... yeah, I mean, I can see how you’d look at it like that. It’s reasonable. 
 

For me, it’s more or less the case initially, but once that structure is created, it’s up to the Owner/Top Exec to discern everything. They’re really responsible at that point. And everyone involved is responsible to and for each other. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Of course you feel like I'm missing the mark. And I feel like you are. We wouldn't be having this conversation if we agreed with each other ya big lug.

Lmao... and now what you thought was just an attempt to get everyone to see the forest, you’re stuck discussing every little tree with us, too!   
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Everything should be a collaboration. But Rivera is obviously, going by who has been hired, the man at the forefront as far as office personnel goes.

 

For now, yes.
 

The preference is that it doesn’t stay that way and Snyder becomes good at discerning things himself, but yeah, that’s the gist of what we’ve been getting into in terms of the set up. 

 

Nonetheless, the hiring process is just the initial step. Redundant, I know, but the structure is key after that. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

We disagree here. And will continue to. If I pick the groceries and the groceries are stale and I came home to the ex, back when we were together, I'd be responsible for that mistake. Not her, even though she told me to get the damn lettuce.

 

And trust me, I'd hear about it!

A more accurate analogy would be that you picked the groceries, then your ex is assigned to properly store them. If they end up stale, someone else (counselor?) is put in charge and needs to discern whether they were stale when you brought them or your ex just left them out on the table instead of putting them in the fridge.  
 

So, it’s a way to keep you from blaming one another improperly. And there’s a shared responsibility, either way, even though you buying the groceries came first. 

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

It has become very clear this is the case. I blame you guys, of course

That might be fair, but that’s why we need someone wiser and above us both in authority to discern who is at fault here! And it matters not which posts came first! See?  
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Overall we're in agreement it seems. Maybe you do see the forest through the pines!

👍

 

I was in a spaceship looking at it, but also had a super powerful microscope to see all the pines in their individual glory. I was discussing them with my fellow aliens. That’s when you walked in.  

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

As one of the foremost proponents of the "coach-centric" model here, though, what I have described is what I've been using the term "coach-centric" from day one as. So it is relevant! 

I didn’t say it’s irrelevant, just that it changes the entire discussion. And that the way we defined it, as well as everywhere else I’ve heard it or read about it, is that it’s about the structure of the organization so that a coach who is also the top exec is extremely rare and has more examples of failure than success in comparison to other models. 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Nice for you to recognize that. Can you call my exes and let them know, too, please?

I would, but I’m too terrified as to what I might hear.  

 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

It's not, though, as this is how I've always defined it in my posts on the matter! It may be new to you, though, because perhaps you didn't read my posts. Which I don't blame you, I often don't read my own posts.

Me? Miss a Kdawg post? Nah, never! 😛 

 

 I definitely read your posts, it’s just that the definition you give it is simply not what most people do. And it’s not what we were giving it while engaging in this discussion, which when you made that post caused some misunderstandings. 
 

Which is okay, that’s why we’re focusing on the important trees that make up the forest and ironing it out! 😛 

 

The separation that you make of the monarchical coach model and the non-monarchical one is an exclusively Kdawg production, for instance. That’s a good distinction to make, but we’d make that distinction within the“coach-centric” model as a subset. And, therefore, the examples of either subset’s success are still super rare. Which is important to point out. 
 

But you exclusively define “coach-centric” with who came first, where the coach is leading the hires, while only including the ones that ended up with a solid hierarchy/structure that includes a qualified GM with final say over the roster (and not necessarily reporting to the coach).  
 

That turns a lot of the comparisons we’re making upside down, lol. Suddenly, a very large part of the NFL is following that model and now we look like idiots for going against it or not preferring it, which isn’t what we were doing. It’s kind of setting us up to be wrong no matter what, but I forgive you. 😛 
 

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

It would be if the quarterback from Minnesota was throwing a ball at it...

 



 

I crack myself up.

[TSO]

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

This is clearly a B structure. It's been outright stated that Rivera is looking for a GM. He's also stated he only wants full control over the game day 46. I don't believe for a second that he's duping us and planning on going Emperor Palpatine on us, but anyone who thinks he won't be involved in personnel decisions is crazy... The HC and GM should always have a say, with the tie breaker going to the GM... No matter the model. 

This was really my concern from the onset. 
 

I absolutely loved that he stated that and it was my favorite part of the (rumored at the time) potential hire. I said as much, but I also said I was worried that Dan would offer the world and Rivera would be seduced by it, going against his own good judgment on the matter. 
 

And then the presser happened. The tone changed. And even Ron himself called Snyder’s version of it “unique”. Which, if he’s following that model, isn’t unique at all. It’s effectively the standard, so why call it unique? 
 

Hence, this entire discussion.
 

And why we’re all waiting with baited breath as to what happens.

 

And why it’s important for us to understand how vital the way it gets structured is. 

[Skinsinparadise]