Big Blue Huddle

I guess I'm different. My list of wants would be for the GM, not the HC. I would hope that the GM has his own for the HC.

Quote from: T200 on January 29, 2025, 01:35:24 PMI guess I'm different. My list of wants would be for the GM, not the HC. I would hope that the GM has his own for the HC.

Tim,

It sounds like owners interviewing head coaches is the norm.   I imagine many teams include the GM in those interviews, but it doesn't sound like there are many teams that allow the GM to make that hire on their own.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 29, 2025, 01:48:01 PMTim,

It sounds like owners interviewing head coaches is the norm.   I imagine many teams include the GM in those interviews, but it doesn't sound like there are many teams that allow the GM to make that hire on their own.

I guess I'm different. If I hire a GM, his job will be to hire his coach. I'm not a fan of micromanagement.

Quote from: T200 on January 29, 2025, 01:49:53 PMI guess I'm different. If I hire a GM, his job will be to hire his coach. I'm not a fan of micromanagement.

Tim,

A GM's primary job is player acquisition.  So, I am not sure the average GM processes a superior ability to hire a head coach than an owner (or at least a long-time owner, especially a successful one.  Even Andy Reid, one of the best hires in recent memory, interviewed with ownership rather than the GM at the time.

Plus, it's not unheard of for an owner to fire the GM while retaining the head coach.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 29, 2025, 02:07:16 PMTim,

A GM's primary job is player acquisition.  So, I am not sure the average GM processes a superior ability to hire a head coach than an owner (or at least a long-time owner, especially a successful one.  Even Andy Reid, one of the best hires in recent memory, interviewed with ownership rather than the GM at the time.

Plus, it's not unheard of for an owner to fire the GM while retaining the head coach.

Rich,

Respectfully, a GM's job is whatever the owner wants it to be.

I guess I'm different.

Quote from: T200 on January 29, 2025, 02:26:02 PMRich,

Respectfully, a GM's job is whatever the owner wants it to be.

I guess I'm different.

We are, I appreciate and value expertise and experience.   Years spent in dark rooms studying film and perhaps working with the GM to negotiate contracts and acquire free agents don't prepare one for or make one an expert in evaluating coaching talent.  If they are not the expert, why would you give them full control?

Again, as you said, we are different.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 29, 2025, 02:28:59 PMWe are, I appreciate and value expertise and experience.   Years spent in dark rooms studying film and perhaps working with the GM to negotiate contracts and acquire free agents don't prepare one for or make one an expert in evaluating coaching talent.  If they are not the expert, why would you give them full control?

Again, as you said, we are different.

What owner spent years in "dark rooms studying film"? That's NOT what I want in an owner. I've been railing against meddling, as you well know. No way would I advocate for an owner to be involved to that extent.

As far as I'm concerned, my GM doesn't need to be an expert at hiring coaches. He only needs to get one that works well with him, they are on the same page and share a philosophy, and can manage a team and get wins.

Quote from: T200 on January 29, 2025, 02:34:03 PMWhat owner spent years in "dark rooms studying film"? That's NOT what I want in an owner. I've been railing against meddling, as you well know. No way would I advocate for an owner to be involved to that extent.

As far as I'm concerned, my GM doesn't need to be an expert at hiring coaches. He only needs to get one that works well with him, they are on the same page and share a philosophy, and can manage a team and get wins.

In many of the most successful NFL franchises, the head coach (rather than the GM) is the culture setter.  Andy Reid had two GMs in KC.  Bill Belick had a GM, didn't have a GM, and then sort of had a GM.  Bill Walsh was the GM and then had a GM.  Don Shula was the GM and then worked with two different GMs.

As such, is it wise to completely make the HC a subordinate to the GM?  Most of the successful franchises have seen the HC and GM more as partners than boss and employee.  If the GM has complete power to hire and fire his HC, than you don't have the partnership.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 29, 2025, 02:44:38 PMIn many of the most successful NFL franchises, the head coach (rather than the GM) is the culture setter.  Andy Reid had two GMs in KC.  Bill Belick had a GM, didn't have a GM, and then sort of had a GM.  Bill Walsh was the GM and then had a GM.  Don Shula was the GM and then worked with two different GMs.

As such, is it wise to completely make the HC a subordinate to the GM?  Most of the successful franchises have seen the HC and GM more as partners than boss and employee.  If the GM has complete power to hire and fire his HC, than you don't have the partnership.

That's more of an opinion than a fact. There can still be a partnership between supervisor and subordinate.

There is a pecking order. As the owner, it's up to me to decide if I want to have the GM and HC on the same level; one handles the personnel aspect (contracts and acquisitions) and the other handles the players and on-field performance. Or to have the HC report to the GM.

I understand the norm has been to have them on the same level. I would choose the stacked hierarchy.

Quote from: T200 on January 29, 2025, 01:49:53 PMI guess I'm different. If I hire a GM, his job will be to hire his coach. I'm not a fan of micromanagement.

I agree with you.  But, too many of the owners think they actually know what they are doing when it comes to football. 

Lurie let Andy Reid go. He then hired Chip Kelly. Pederson won a Superbowl, then Lurie asked him to tank and fired him. And no one was spouting Nick Sirianni's praises last year (he could've been canned after last season). I don't think Lurie is exactly the centerpiece for espousing how involved one must be in making coaching decisions. Howie Roseman is the reason that team is truly successful--and Lurie cut him out of GM responsibilities when Kelly came in. He's very lucky Roseman never left when the Kelly debacle went down.

I think an owner should ask for and be able to understand a coach's vision for a team and how it intersects with the roster and the GM's team-building theory. But requiring "specific qualities" (beyond things like organization and preparation)... I don't know how productive it is, especially when you're talking 10 in the Lurie example.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on January 29, 2025, 05:00:18 PMLurie let Andy Reid go. He then hired Chip Kelly. Pederson won a Superbowl, then Lurie asked him to tank and fired him. And no one was spouting Nick Sirianni's praises last year (he could've been canned after last season). I don't think Lurie is exactly the centerpiece for espousing how involved one must be in making coaching decisions. Howie Roseman is the reason that team is truly successful--and Lurie cut him out of GM responsibilities when Kelly came in. He's very lucky Roseman never left when the Kelly debacle went down.

I think an owner should ask for and be able to understand a coach's vision for a team and how it intersects with the roster and the GM's team-building theory. But requiring "specific qualities" (beyond things like organization and preparation)... I don't know how productive it is, especially when you're talking 10 in the Lurie example.

Considering the success of the Eagles compared to the Giants (or the majority of the league) over the past decade it's hard to claim the Eagles don't have a good owner.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 29, 2025, 05:53:46 PMConsidering the success of the Eagles compared to the Giants (or the majority of the league) over the past decade it's hard to claim the Eagles don't have a good owner.

I didn't claim he wasn't a good owner. What I argued was that implying he has a system for divining head coaches (as the article implies) is kind of antithetical to churning them since firing Reid. Lurie is the beneficiary of a very talented GM (who Lurie absolutely deserves credit for elevating to GM and having the foresight to pay to keep through Kelly's reign) whose equally talented teams and savvy trading have covered up mediocre coaches.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on January 29, 2025, 06:53:40 PMI didn't claim he wasn't a good owner. What I argued was that implying he has a system for divining head coaches (as the article implies) is kind of antithetical to churning them since firing Reid. Lurie is the beneficiary of a very talented GM (who Lurie absolutely deserves credit for elevating to GM and having the foresight to pay to keep through Kelly's reign) whose equally talented teams and savvy trading have covered up mediocre coaches.

If you say so.  Frankly, his process is pretty sound and better than most owners and the results speak for them self.