DougDew

You are likely summarizing something else that he said. I remember him saying that he "vouched" for him...and apologized to Mr Irsay for vouching for him. That's not the same thing as bringing him here. Fine. Did Ballard NOT want either? Now the other half of the question. Who wanted AR?

Then to you. Did Frank or Ballard bring Wentz here ("for frank's offense")? Did SS or Ballard pick AR ("for SS offense")? I know nobody knows. I'm asking your opinion.

He wouldn't. He hired Frank and Gus because those are the coaches he wanted to supply personnel for.. You know, symbiosis, not the HC dictating to the GM. That would be weird..

My objective is to opine that its highly unlikely that blaming Frank for the roster failures will result in giving SS the same level of praise for the roster successes. It will then flip to Ballard. I think its more linear to simply say that the guy who runs the draft room for 8 years is the guy responsible for the name that goes to the podium, for the last 8 years, and for giving whatever pick it takes to get the HC the QB he wanted. While a HC may want any player, he isn't the one handing out specific draft picks (AP or Woods at 54?, give up what to move up to take Cross) or making salary cap allocations to secure the desired player. The GM decides if the price for the player is correct relative to the weighting he gives to the HCs wishes, and that's why the player is here. The deal gets done because the GM wants it done, not because the HC also wants it done. Regardless of the level of influence a HC has. JMO. My opinion is that despite the GM giving the player the HC wants for his scheme, (duh, is that how it works?), he also has to believe in the HCs scheme. He's not going to give the HC a bunch of players for a scheme he thinks won't work or is outdated. So yes, it still all comes back to the GM. Its his call, unless the owner gets fed up and has to step in and fire the HC. Specific to the Wentz deal. The reason Wentz was here is because Ballard accepted the price of a 3rd/2nd. If the price was a 1st, or 2 1sts, or 3 1sts, its doubtful that Frank would have gotten the QB "he pounded his fists for", when weighed against other options. What Frank wanted is not the reason Wentz was here.

You guys keep coming back to opining about how things operate internally. I'm confident that it operates the same way it has been, I would wager. In fact, I may be the only one who thinks that. My question was not about how you think it operates: What I'm asking is does the level of input (of anybody under the GM) change in peoples minds when the team fails vs when it succeeds.

Y'all are trying to make points without actually answering pretty simple questions. So it sounds like you are in the HC/GM 70/30 roster construction camp. That may in fact be accurate. That's fine. Hypothetically, do you think its fair to blame Frank for past personnel failures and not to praise SS for future personnel successes? Or even simpler. Was Frank 70% responsible for the River/Wentz/Ryan acquisition? Was Steichen 70% responsible for the AR acquisition? Or was the latter Ballard? Those are pretty easy questions to answer straightforwardly. To the bolded. Why are Downs and McKenzie Ballard types, and not SS types?

Well, yes, I meant fire Frank when Frank was actually fired. It strongly seems that Ballard didn't do that. I don't know where the team would have gone the rest of the way, or if Ballard would have fired him at the end of the season. I characterized it as near .500, but still 3-5-1 could have turned a season into something other than a crapshow. Also, Irsay just signed Frank. A GM doesn't just make the Owner pay a HC for three more years while sitting on a beach. Obviously the owner is always involved. Its his money.

Well, since i thought about this more as to why I had that opinion. I now remember that Saturday said that Irsay basically offered him the job before Frank was even fired. Which was an inference that Irsay fired Frank because he knew he had his replacement secured, and it wasn't an assistant coach. Nowhere was it mentioned that Ballard took the lead on that or was consulted much before Irsay called Jeff, for which I'm sure Ballard was angry about.

That's fine. I'm not disputing to what level a coach may or may not have in an organization. What I'm asking is does the level of input change in peoples minds when the team fails vs when it succeeds.

It seems like you are saying that the players that don't make much of a difference are the ones that the HC influences. But the good players, like AR, are the ones Ballard picked without the same influence from the HC?

I get that. but its a far thing to imply that Ballard led the charge to fire Frank at that time, especially when it was Irsay or Saturday who admitted that Irsay called Jeff to nearly hire him before Frank was told he was fired. I think its safe to say that Irsay drove the bus to fire Frank more than Ballard did. Ok 3-5-1 isn't 500. Frank had lost the team by then, but it still didn't seem like Ballard was wanting to fire Frank right then and then finding an interim, especially since the OC was fired a bit before.

That if previous failures could be blamed on Frank's influence with Ballard deserving little blame in a defense of Ballard, then future successes would be based upon Shane's influence, with Ballard deserving little praise for the turnaround. I'm not asking you what you are going to say in the future. I'm asking if you understand the logic of the point I just made.

Then a reset. You believe there is a dynamic between the GM, HC, and Owner when it comes to personnel decisions....specific players....not just general philosophies. Do you think that dynamic changes when a new HC is hired in a way that he has more or less influence than the previous HC?

Funny how you're avoiding the question and now trying to make the question the issue. So, did Frank and Ballard collaborate on personnel decisions to the same level as SS and Ballard do now? Or does one HC have more influence over Ballard...in this dynamic that you describe?

So did Frank have bout 70% of the control over offensive personnel? And does SS now have about 70% control over offensive personnel, or less?

The presser where Irsay said Frank was fired and Saturday was hired. Speculation was that Ballard didn't lead the firing of Frank. And who knows how the rest of the season would have gone. I think we wer about .500 at the time of the firing.

Its a simple concept: What percentage influence of the total personnel acquisition process...specific players acquired....do you think Frank had? 70%, 50%, 30%...something else? And what do you think SS has in the same process. 70%, 50%, 30% something else? Garrapolo, 2nd round, Purdy, 7th round, Hurts, 2nd round, Dak, 3rd round, Goff (well, whatever you think he was worth when LAR was trying to move him). ETC. We were talking about what would happen to HOU in the next 6 years if Stroud retired. It seems like they could build a roster to support a nonelite QB who was found by giving non-top 15 picks. That was your question.

Since they are so hard to find, do you think they might successfully build a roster to support a QB that wasn't elite, like SF, Philly, Dallas, DET, etc?

Okay, just making sure that when you start praising SS for the turn around, that you're not going to say that Chris hired the good coach, but Irsay hired the bad one...especially when it seems that Chris didn't want to fire Frank. I just don't see the logic in commenting about Ballard at all if you think the HC is heavily responsible for the specific players who are drafted, signed, or retained. The GM would seem fairly irrelevant to the "Frank-blamers", JMO.

Will you give Steichen credit for the turn around? What I don't understand about the Frank blamers, is that you'll now have to turn it around and become Steichen praisers, or else it looks a bit hypocritical. Why defend a GM who you must think is pretty irrelevant? And BTW, Irsay has a hand in who the HC is...so its not like Ballard hired the good HC but Irsay hired the bad HC.

Are you asking where would HOU be 6 years later? Where ever they would be then, would have nothing to do with Stroud retiring next year.

I don't disagree much. The problem I have with CB1 is, I don't know what that looks like under Gus or Flus. I know what it looked like with Vontae in press, but zone?.....is there even a real CB1? FS1? Not sure I need pick 46 for that. RG: I'm fine with French, or rotating FAs, or developing a mid round player. WR1, I would not rely on pick 46 for that. Its a prospect you think will be better than Pittman. That prospect is probably ranked in round 1. JMO.

Yeah, I think the pieces shuffle around a bit and aren't set in stone everywhere. NE had Gronk for a long time...dominant........and KC has Kelce. You mentioned Jones as a dominant force, and I think BB always found a way to have a pass rush at critical moments. I think having elite performance from passing game assets is critical, and it can be dispersed differently from team to team.

Oh yes, I'd add the EDGE and the #1WR. Keep them when you find them. Some positions can be churned easier with no detrimental drop off in talent or impact, IMO.

I think the NFL as a whole has more of a win now mindset than back in 2013. I also think that the idea of winning while the QB is under the rookie contract is overstated. GB, NE, and other teams built contending teams after paying veteran QBs. KC now too. IMO, a team has to have elite Position Players under rookie contracts to win SBs...not the QB. And draft them frequently, and churn them, while you pay the vet to be your franchise face for 12 years.