Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official 2023 ES Free Agency Thread... available until Free Agency 2024 begins


Riggo-toni

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I think the GM being the total boss is a bit of a myth we've conjured up. Andy Reid has said many times he and Brett Veach are basically like partners. Ditto Kyle Shanahan and John Lynch and the list goes on and on.


Agreed. It feels like the era of the ultra powerful GM is over. Roseman may be one of the few left (even then Lurie interferes time to time). Perhaps Mickey Loomis is another one

Edited by method man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I think the GM being the total boss is a bit of a myth we've conjured up. Andy Reid has said many times he and Brett Veach are basically like partners. Ditto Kyle Shanahan and John Lynch and the list goes on and on.

 

It's 100% not a myth.  There are teams who have had that operation.  

 

If the point is its not per se a total dictatorship -- that's true.  For example, Bruce Allen was in charge, he had final say and he'd double down on that point that he had final say at times.  But many times (not always) he'd consult with Jay before making a move.  Jay would hate the times he wasn't in the loop, ala the Alex Smith trade and some FA signings but he acceded at times he was in the loop and consulted. 

 

Feels that's the way plenty of other teams operate like.  Chris Ballard makes the moves.  But at times he'd consult with Reich, etc.

 

But yeah KC and Seattle (who Rivera touts as a coach centric operation) along with the Patriots have the head coach in charge. 

 

As you said SF is a partrnership but its not like their operation speaks for the entire NFL.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/john-lynch-kyle-shanahan-divide-personnel-power-49ers

 

SANTA CLARA – General manager John Lynch and coach Kyle Shanahan have separate contractual power when it comes to 49ers personnel.

Lynch has power over the 90-man offseason roster, free agency and the draft. Shanahan, meanwhile, has control over which 53 players are selected at the opening of the regular season.

But Lynch said he and Shanahan are committed to making it a partnership.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to Mike Lombardi (not a big fan) on The Junkies this morning and mentioned he was a lousy GM with certain coaches but felt good about his partnership with Belicheck (sp?).  Referenced Snyder running John Sneider out of town and look how successful he's been with Pete Carrol. 

 

He makes some sense that those types of partnerships can be synced and work but it also has to equate to wins.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Going Commando said:

 

I don't really know what happened in Houston, and I would be suspicious of anyone who makes definitive claims about the consensus of Houston's draft room.  Things are never cut and dry.  I will say that I think it's a brewing disaster when an owner mandates a particular QB be picked over the objections of his football people.  That QB is gonna have no chance to develop properly.

 

But I also think it's idiotic for the football people to ignore the QB position when they need one.

 

Offseason decisions about QB require the backing of ownership because they are ultimately one of the biggest business decision that franchises make.  But owners should not be picking the QBs for their football people.  It's more about the FO people making a choice and then getting ownership to sign off on it/understand the timeline of development that it's going to take to work out.  Ownership can demand a concrete plan, but the plan needs to come from the football people.

 

The rumors that I picked up from podcasts are that Nick Caserio wanted to draft Will Anderson with the second pick.  He wasn't sold on any of Stroud, Levis, or Richardson.  Ownership pushed him somewhat against to will to pick a QB.  They didn't dictate which QB he had to pick, but told him to pick a QB.   As a way to make everybody happy, ownership then let Caserio trade up to #3 to draft Anderson at the cost of pick 12 in 2023, pick 34 in 2023, Houston's first round pick in 2024 (likely a top 10 pick), and Houston's third round pick in 2024.  

 

Just rumors, but it does sound plausible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's 100% not a myth.  There are teams who have had that operation. 

 

 

But even then, you think the GM would ever cut or trade a significant player without the coach having some say?

 

I think the decision making process tends to be more democratic than people think.

 

Look at our behind the scenes draft videos. You see Rivera and Mayhew discussing things together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

But even then, you think the GM would ever cut or trade a significant player without the coach having some say?

 

I think the decision making process tends to be more democratic than people think.

 

Look at our behind the scenes draft videos. You see Rivera and Mayhew discussing things together.

 

I doubt the GM doesn't ever consult with the coach or vice versa if that's your point.

 

Heck my own bosses would often consult with me on decisions they make because we are on the same side with the same goal.  That's how most work places work, I agree.

 

But there has been a boss with final say which is a different narrative.   Bruce for example consulted with Jay, mostly but not always but ultimately did whatever he wanted.   Heck even here with Ron being the final say, he's allued multuple times that it was his call and implied that not everyone in the FO agreed with him.

 

Some spoke about the Wentz deal this off season and getting under the hood, there wasn't apparently full consensus about trading for Wentz according to some.  But ultimately Rivera listened to various opinions but its ultimately his call.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

49ers famously had a big rift in the 2021 draft with Lynch and Shanahan butting heads about QB's, to trade up, etc. Lynch traded up for Lance while Shanahan wanted Mac Jones and did not like Lance (unclear if he also wanted to trade up for Mac)

Funny how Kyle was screwed here by Danny Boy with RG3 over Kirk and in SF where he thought he was in more control then got Lance shoved down his throat.

 

Luckily we won't need to worry about that once Howell proves his a good starter!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

The rumors that I picked up from podcasts are that Nick Caserio wanted to draft Will Anderson with the second pick.  He wasn't sold on any of Stroud, Levis, or Richardson.  Ownership pushed him somewhat against to will to pick a QB.  They didn't dictate which QB he had to pick, but told him to pick a QB.   As a way to make everybody happy, ownership then let Caserio trade up to #3 to draft Anderson at the cost of pick 12 in 2023, pick 34 in 2023, Houston's first round pick in 2024 (likely a top 10 pick), and Houston's third round pick in 2024.  

 

Just rumors, but it does sound plausible.

Similar scenario when we drafted Haskins then moved back up to take Sweat who the FO really wanted in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

I think the GM being the total boss is a bit of a myth we've conjured up. Andy Reid has said many times he and Brett Veach are basically like partners. Ditto Kyle Shanahan and John Lynch and the list goes on and on.

 

If the GM can fire the coach he's the boss.  If the GM has final roster say he's the boss. If the GM does not have those things the question would be who does - because that person is the boss.

 

Now to be successful a GM and HC need to work in partnership and develop consensus as much as possible, but someone has to be in charge (and accountable for)of the football operations, break ties and ultimately own the won loss record.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MartinC said:

If I was an NFL owner and my franchise lacked a solution at QB when my GM came to me with the offseason plan and said "We don't like the options available at QB at the top of the draft' my response would be 'Fine, thats your call and I am not going to override you. But I do want to know what your plan is for the QB position because without one we cant win - and if we don't start winning I will have to make changes. Starting with you."

 

Sure, that's reasonable.  Every coach and GM is going to have a plan for QB heading into every season.  They know better than we do how important the position is.  But the quality of that plan varies widely by situation and opportunity. 

 

What we're talking about, I gather, is a hypothetical where an owner disagrees with the front office's plan, thinks there is a better one to be had in the draft that they intend to pass over, being right, and then making the FO live with the consequences of that mistake.  I think that's perfectly fine and does zero harm to your culture.  I'm fine with ****ing up your QB situation being a fireable offense.  But I think there can also be extenuating circumstances that would make you say, OK, let's try again next off-season and give the coach and GM another shot.

 

Anyway, that is very different from directly interfering in the roster of the team, which is something I strongly believe ownership should never do.  And I don't think there are contexts where it's ok.  It's a line that ownership can never uncross.  Everyone who works for you from here on out knows you've crossed that line before.  It's an act that defines your team's culture.  The first years of successful ownership have to be about building a good culture, and Harris's group getting directly involved with our roster would be one of the most alarming indicators of an awful culture they are creating.  There is no rationalizing that for me.  If it happens, I think it would be enough for me to finally bow out on this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Going Commando said:

 

What we're talking about, I gather, is a hypothetical where an owner disagrees with the front office's plan, thinks there is a better one to be had in the draft that they intend to pass over, being right, and then making the FO live with the consequences of that mistake.  I think that's perfectly fine and does zero harm to your culture.  I'm fine with ****ing up your QB situation being a fireable offense.  But I think there can also be extenuating circumstances that would make you say, OK, let's try again next off-season and give the coach and GM another shot.

 

I'm 100% with you on the owner staying out of personnel decisions. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the plan, I'm not qualified to do so, more hold them accountable for the results of the plan. Not finding a QB in year 1 wouldn't be a for cause issue, nor year 2. After year 3 I'm getting impatient and if we are going into year 5 there had better be an answer that works or its time for some changes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I'm 100% with you on the owner staying out of personnel decisions. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the plan, I'm not qualified to do so, more hold them accountable for the results of the plan. Not finding a QB in year 1 wouldn't be a for cause issue, nor year 2. After year 3 I'm getting impatient and if we are going into year 5 there had better be an answer that works or its time for some changes. 

Yep the owner should stay out of personnel decisions but also act swiftly when it’s clear the FO he is employing isn’t getting the job done. I suspect Rivera would have been fired before now under better ownership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

What we're talking about, I gather, is a hypothetical where an owner disagrees with the front office's plan, thinks there is a better one to be had in the draft that they intend to pass over, being right, and then making the FO live with the consequences of that mistake.  I think that's perfectly fine and does zero harm to your culture.  I'm fine with ****ing up your QB situation being a fireable offense.  But I think there can also be extenuating circumstances that would make you say, OK, let's try again next off-season and give the coach and GM another shot.

 

 

 

a QB that you passed on doing well on a different team being fireable.... he's gonna have different receivers, most likely a different offensive scheme and playing different teams..  That's gonna be an impossible comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I see a bigger role for the owner than you guys.   For me, the owner should have a say in the big picture plans for the roster.  Do I want to get younger, do I want to tear the roster and start over, continue to do everything I can to win now, or take a middle approach, how important is a championship to me-- do I want to put in all my chips for maybe a 2 window and do I want to build a consistent winner than can make the playoffs 8 out of 10 years.  And most big roster moves like resigning your highest paid guys are going to touch on those areas and are the owners decision in my opinion.

 

I think GM's and coaches are often bad at doing those big picture things.  They usually want to win now because it is their only hope of job security.  I think GM's tend to see themselves as the top scout in organizations and often will disregard process for their gut.  That is not to say all GM and coaches are bad at these big picture items, but a lot are.

 

To me the owner makes the plan and the GM and coach are the technical experts who carry out the plan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think GM's and coaches are incentivized to be too conservative when it comes to young QB's.  Ron is actually being quite bold with Sam Howell.   Generally speaking if  you draft a QB high, the GM and coach will have their jobs ride on the success of the QB.   Most of the times its difficult to survive a QB flop.  Realistically your team has to still be winning for you to avoid getting fired if  you commit to a QB and they flop bladly.  Joe Douglas for the NY Jets may survive Zach Wilson, but they went 9-8 in year 2 of Wilson despite Wilson flopping.  Likewise in San Fran with John Lynch missing on Trey Lance.   80% of the time if a QB flops  your GM and coach are going to get fired.  

 

I think the Raiders, Titans (at 11), the Commanders, Patriots, and Bucs should all seriously have considered drafting Will Levis.  I am not saying we definitely should have because to do so would be to some extent be giving up on Howell and if this staff really believes in Howell they should back him.   But in general if you don't have a QB you should draft the best QB available and if that QB flops, ownership should be patient if it appears the GM and coach are doing a decent job otherwise.  A QB failure should not lead to a firing even if the team disappoints because of the QB flop.

 

To me an idea owner should tell the GM and coach, get me a good QB, make a good plan and come to me with the plan so I can approve or not approve it.  If I approve it and it doesn't work, I will back you.  Now if this happens like 3 times, I am probably going to fire you, but if you miss once and I signed off on it, I am not going to fire you as long as you are doing a good job other than the QB (and that includes making moves for the long term benefit of the organization rather than always trying to win now).

Edited by philibusters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, philibusters said:

I think I see a bigger role for the owner than you guys.   For me, the owner should have a say in the big picture plans for the roster.  Do I want to get younger, do I want to tear the roster and start over, continue to do everything I can to win now, or take a middle approach, how important is a championship to me-- do I want to put in all my chips for maybe a 2 window and do I want to build a consistent winner than can make the playoffs 8 out of 10 years.  And most big roster moves like resigning your highest paid guys are going to touch on those areas and are the owners decision in my opinion.

 

I think GM's and coaches are often bad at doing those big picture things.  They usually want to win now because it is their only hope of job security.  I think GM's tend to see themselves as the top scout in organizations and often will disregard process for their gut.  That is not to say all GM and coaches are bad at these big picture items, but a lot are.

 

To me the owner makes the plan and the GM and coach are the technical experts who carry out the plan.


 

This is not something I agree with in the least, the owner doing anything you listed in your first paragraph makes me shudder in disgust. He needs to empower his GM to make those decisions (sure, the owner can be consulted on long term strategy items and big moves) and then step back. If the GM is making short term moves the way a HC would then you haven’t built an organizational culture that lets him believes he can think long term. Or it’s been 3, 4, or 5 years and he’s letting a hot seat get to him, in which case you failed by not already replacing him. The type of decisions you’re talking about here belong to the “owner” in Madden franchise mode…not in real life, imo. Not in a healthy and stable organization. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

If the GM can fire the coach he's the boss.  If the GM has final roster say he's the boss. If the GM does not have those things the question would be who does - because that person is the boss.

 

Now to be successful a GM and HC need to work in partnership and develop consensus as much as possible, but someone has to be in charge (and accountable for)of the football operations, break ties and ultimately own the won loss record.

 

I just don't think there are many situations left in the NFL where there is a GM who can survive multiple coaches and, in many cases, even if they have that authority, the owner tends to be a powerful force in that organization. That is what make the NFL quite different from the NBA where there are a lot of powerful GMs who are the bosses of their organizations (Daryl Morey, Sam Presti, Pat Riley, Rob Pelinka, etc)

 

Mickey Loomis, Brian Gutekunst and Jason Licht are the only three guys I can think of. None of these guys to me have a presence in their orgs like a Pat Riley or Daryl Morey

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I wonder if Harris being a minority owner of the Steelers for a while will have any impact of his next FO. I'd love to have their level of consistency. 

 

Don't hold your breath. Tepper was a minority owner of the Steelers as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, method man said:

 

I just don't think there are many situations left in the NFL where there is a GM who can survive multiple coaches

No argument. Or multiple swings and misses at the QB position for that matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...