Jump to content
  • ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • You make good points on this. The Pats have good reason to be skeptical of the Texans here.   I was more talking about the specifics of Caserio's contract that prevent him from interviewing with another team. But evidently the NFL approved it...
    • Isn't that also true of the candidates that you think teams are in a hurry to hire in January?     You could have said the same about Ballard in 2017. He got beat out for the Bears job by Ryan Pace, so he was a leftover. When the Colts job came open, and he was considered the favorite, and media outlets spoke of him as one of the most coveted candidates on the market. (Irsay is prone to hyperbole, but he called him the most prepared GM candidate ever; it's not likely that Irsay felt Ballard was just a "leftover.")   My point: There are always good candidates. Same is true for head coaches, assistants, etc. It's shortsighted and hysterical to act like there are no good GM candidates on the board in June. The guys who you say teams will be rushing to hire the following January are on the board in June.     Not sure why you're arguing this. It's pretty obvious that Caserio is the guy they wanted; they look to have canceled their GM search for now, which suggests that they're going to wait until Caserio's contract expires after the 2020 draft and attempt to hire him, pending further developments.   And to my point, he was not hired in January, so the desire to get a good candidate (or the guy you want) doesn't require making these moves in January.     I guess I could have phrased that differently, but what I said was they keep virtually all their staff in place, meaning they might change a piece or two in Year 1, but most of their staff remains the same in Year 1.    But I did say that's typical, which left room for outliers. And I was speaking about GMs that take over the job in January, not after the draft (or later, like Gettleman and Dorsey, recently).    If that came across as overly dogmatic, I didn't intend for it to be. But I stand by my point that it's typical for a new GM hired in January to keep his staff mostly in tact for that first player acquisition cycle, and make changes at some point after the draft. This is what Ballard did, keeping Jimmy Raye until June, then hiring Dodds and Hogan. There are other examples.      This is what I reject. Firstly, it doesn't matter. Things change. I don't think I need to say much more on that. Secondly, we have several examples of teams in recent seasons changing GMs outside of the typical Black Monday in January window where big changes are traditionally made. Chiefs fired Dorsey in June, Panthers fired Gettleman in July, now Jets and Texans. I'm not saying it's a trend, just that it's not as rare as you make it out to be, at least not recently.     To the bolded, I didn't really give this a lot of thought in 2017, but it's hard to know how much difference it would have made. Ballard went through his first cycle with another GM's right hand man and front office staff, for a coach that he didn't have any experience with. Ballard's approach was noticeably different in 2018.   This might seem half-baked and out of nowhere to you, but it's not. I jumped into this debate with the same viewpoint on Reddit a couple weeks ago, and kind of transported my thoughts into this thread, but didn't start from the beginning. In the other conversation, I think my initial post was something like 'recently I've been thinking that this is a better time period to hire a GM...' If I had posted my thoughts that way here, maybe you would have understood where I was coming from a little better.   That said, it's not just an impractical rambling that I haven't thought through. I don't know if there's any way to prove that one way is right and the other is wrong; I'm stating my preference, strongly.   My primary argument in favor of hiring a GM in June instead of January -- which you haven't addressed -- is that the work that goes into free agency, the Combine, pro days and the draft starts way back in the fall, if not sooner. When you hire a GM in January and give him six weeks to prepare for free agency, eight weeks to prepare for the Combine and pro days, and three months to prepare for the draft, that GM is not operating at full capacity. He would be better equipped if he started the job the prior June.   Do you think that's a weak argument? If so, why? I think that's an easy starting point.   I said earlier, if the Texans had waited until January 2020 to fire Gaine, all this criticism wouldn't exist. And the only practical difference is that they would have handicapped their new GM. (This is a more effective argument for the Jets, since the Texans are apparently not hiring a new GM yet.)   Like I said in my first post in this thread, imagine if the Colts had hired Ballard in June 2016 instead of January 2017... I'm sure people would have been critical, wondering why we let Grigson run the 2016 cycle if we were going to fire him, but imagine how much better prepared Ballard would have been for his first cycle with an additional six months on the job. 
    • Ballard's pre and post draft videos are Must See TV.  He truly is Dialed In. With my old memory, i will be able to watch them again in a few weeks and enjoy them. Like watching Andy Griffith maybe, it just never gets old.   The look and words from Frank about getting Campbell was Great.  He is so pumped.       
    • Although I will say didn’t we almost beat the eagles last year?
  • Members

  • Create New...