Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!
PeterBowman

Texans fire their GM

Recommended Posts

I saw that coming!  They've been drafting a lot of non impact players.

I thought Rick Smith was better than that guy.  Obrien wanted somebody different and he got an even worse choice.  Gaines picks were very Grigson like to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krunk said:

I saw that coming!  They've been drafting a lot of non impact players.

I thought Rick Smith was better than that guy.  Obrien wanted somebody different and he got an even worse choice.  Gaines picks were very Grigson like to me.

Yep....now let's hope they don't get their version of Ballard lol.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:

Yep....now let's hope they don't get their version of Ballard lol.

I thought their draft from this year was a bit mediocre along with the draft he had last year. Very few if any impact players .  I liked the OL that they selected in the first round but I thought that first round was too high for him considering he was a small school player. I think the Texans are mainly reacting to Deshaun Watson getting hammered like crazy last year and are making immediate moves to fix the situation.  They are cutting bait now before they get their version of being "Grigsoned".    I wouldn't be surpised if they brought Rick Smith back. That's the kind of move that makes sense at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want a Patriots guy Scott Pioli makes some sense for them.  He'd probably work well with Obrien.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 5:38 PM, Chloe6124 said:

Wow.  How stupid to wait until after the draft and FA.

 

Um, what? That is a great time to fire your GM.

 

GM's spend all year getting ready for the draft. Even if you don't like your GM, it is smarter to keep them than hire someone at the end of the season, who would have 2 months to prepare for the draft, working with a system, scouts, HC, etc that they don't know.

 

IMHO you're far more likely to bungle the draft when you hire a new GM in January / February.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nulled said:

 

Um, what? That is a great time to fire your GM.

 

GM's spend all year getting ready for the draft. Even if you don't like your GM, it is smarter to keep them than hire someone at the end of the season, who would have 2 months to prepare for the draft, working with a system, scouts, HC, etc that they don't know.

 

IMHO you're far more likely to bungle the draft when you hire a new GM in January / February.

 

Colts should’ve hired Ballard after Grigson did one more draft using this logic.  AKA, it doesn’t make much sense to plan things this way.  Clearly something went wrong or were scared to pull the trigger and now are sadly doing it late after additional damage done by the GM (at least in the eyes of the decision maker).  Probably hurt that the best OT was dropping to them and the. Another team traded up in front of them to take him, and then they massively reached for the other OT they did take. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Texans don't win the division this year HC O'Brien is gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nate! said:

 

Colts should’ve hired Ballard after Grigson did one more draft using this logic.  AKA, it doesn’t make much sense to plan things this way.  Clearly something went wrong or were scared to pull the trigger and now are sadly doing it late after additional damage done by the GM (at least in the eyes of the decision maker).  Probably hurt that the best OT was dropping to them and the. Another team traded up in front of them to take him, and then they massively reached for the other OT they did take. 

 

No, by this logic, the Colts should have fired Grigson in May/June 2016, rather than January 2017.

 

This is heavily based on the idea that this year's draft is the only thing that matters. There will be a draft next year, and the year after...

 

No one would be critical of this decision if it was made next January, except in that situation, the GM would have barely two months to hire a staff, get to know his coaching staff and their preferences in players, (assuming he's not replacing it, which is another monumental task for a new GM), review his team's tape and figure out who the team is keeping or getting rid of, and get ready for free agency. Then he has another month and a half to focus on the draft. Except those two tasks overlap, there's the Combine in February, Senior Bowl, player visits, etc. The four months prior to the draft are easily the busiest time of the year for an NFL front office. 

 

Because of that frenetic pace at that time of year, some GM candidates won't even interview. Some teams won't accommodate requests for interviews. And even if you do get good candidates on the line, you basically have a week to make a decision. (Irsay took eight and nine days between firing and hirings. And the Ballard hire was made later in the cycle, end of January.)

 

The Jets took three weeks to hire Douglas, and he has two months to evaluate and round out his own staff, make scouting changes if he wants, get to know the coaching staff and his roster, and can use camp to better evaluate players before he even has to start making personnel decisions. He'll have a much better understanding of what his coaching staff values in players and what his players can accomplish by the time he starts getting ready for free agency at the draft.

 

It does seem like you've sacrificed a draft by letting a guy you weren't committed to remain, but when you're hiring a new GM, the idea is that this guy is going to lead your football operation for the next decade. If you have the luxury of taking your time, you're more likely to make a good hire. And whoever you hire has more time to get his operation in place, which should lead to better decision making. 

 

To me, it's a no-brainer that this is a better time of year to hire a new GM than January. It's not even close.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 6:52 PM, krunk said:

I thought their draft from this year was a bit mediocre along with the draft he had last year. Very few if any impact players .  I liked the OL that they selected in the first round but I thought that first round was too high for him considering he was a small school player. I think the Texans are mainly reacting to Deshaun Watson getting hammered like crazy last year and are making immediate moves to fix the situation.  They are cutting bait now before they get their version of being "Grigsoned".    I wouldn't be surpised if they brought Rick Smith back. That's the kind of move that makes sense at this time.

Well, Watson also holds the ball to long. Which good for us Colts fans though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 9:22 AM, Superman said:

 

No, by this logic, the Colts should have fired Grigson in May/June 2016, rather than January 2017.

 

This is heavily based on the idea that this year's draft is the only thing that matters. There will be a draft next year, and the year after...

 

No one would be critical of this decision if it was made next January, except in that situation, the GM would have barely two months to hire a staff, get to know his coaching staff and their preferences in players, (assuming he's not replacing it, which is another monumental task for a new GM), review his team's tape and figure out who the team is keeping or getting rid of, and get ready for free agency. Then he has another month and a half to focus on the draft. Except those two tasks overlap, there's the Combine in February, Senior Bowl, player visits, etc. The four months prior to the draft are easily the busiest time of the year for an NFL front office. 

 

Because of that frenetic pace at that time of year, some GM candidates won't even interview. Some teams won't accommodate requests for interviews. And even if you do get good candidates on the line, you basically have a week to make a decision. (Irsay took eight and nine days between firing and hirings. And the Ballard hire was made later in the cycle, end of January.)

 

The Jets took three weeks to hire Douglas, and he has two months to evaluate and round out his own staff, make scouting changes if he wants, get to know the coaching staff and his roster, and can use camp to better evaluate players before he even has to start making personnel decisions. He'll have a much better understanding of what his coaching staff values in players and what his players can accomplish by the time he starts getting ready for free agency at the draft.

 

It does seem like you've sacrificed a draft by letting a guy you weren't committed to remain, but when you're hiring a new GM, the idea is that this guy is going to lead your football operation for the next decade. If you have the luxury of taking your time, you're more likely to make a good hire. And whoever you hire has more time to get his operation in place, which should lead to better decision making. 

 

To me, it's a no-brainer that this is a better time of year to hire a new GM than January. It's not even close.

 

It's very rare that you and I see an issue in complete opposite viewpoints....   but that's where we are on this one....   180 degrees opposite.

 

I'll try to be as simple and straight forward as possible.    If indeed this is the best time of year to change your GM,  and, as you noted,  it's not even close,   then the logic should flow that this is when ALL teams change their GM's.    But they don't.    They rarely do.    Perhaps once every two or three years.    That's typically it.   Otherwise,  all the other GM's are changed around the first week of January after the season ends.      I think that's a pretty slam dunk argument.

 

Plus....

 

If you change the GM now, in the spring,  you've pretty much sacrificed not just the draft,  you've sacrificed the entire season.  (Not saying it's impossible to have a good year in this situation)   but the new GM has now inherited his head coach,  the whole coaching staff,  the whole front office, includuing college and pro scouting directors and ALL the scouts.    Those aren't his guy and may not share his vision.    And most all the top ones have already been hired and have jobs elsewhere with the other 31 teams.   The pickings are slim in May/Jue. 

 

So now,  the new GM gets to re-work his coaching staff and front office the followig winter,  in January,  when it's peak hiring and firing season.   

 

Look....   I've argued that making the change now,  while not ideal,  is still doable...   you can still put the lipstick on the pig.    But if given a choice,  I think the NFL community has clearly demonstrated they rather make the changes in Winter....    they're willing to do it in the spring,  but they're prefer not to if possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 2:40 PM, krunk said:

I saw that coming!  They've been drafting a lot of non impact players.

I thought Rick Smith was better than that guy.  Obrien wanted somebody different and he got an even worse choice.  Gaines picks were very Grigson like to me.

 

I'm sorry I'm making this post later in the discussion....    life continues to get in the way out here....  but by coincidence, I was listening to NFL radio over the past weekend,  and they had on the top football writer in the state of Texas,  John McClain,  who covers Houston....

 

And this is what he shared....

 

The draft picks and free signings for Gaines wasn't what got him fired.   McClain explained that while Gaines made the picks/decisoins,  ALL OF THEM were done with the approval of Bill O'Brien.  Everyone of them.    And Gaines was O'Brien's hand picked guy.  

 

Oddly enough,  what got Gaines fired was....  everything else.    All the other parts of the GM's job BESIDES personnel.     Administration,  handling the front office,  the health program, the strength and considtioning program,  nutrition,  on and on.    They thought perhaps they could remove all those functions from Gaines and just have him do the personnel part,  but they thought Gaines would not go for that because,  in essence,  he wouldn't really be the GM,   he'd be a personnel guy,  which is what he was before.    So, they decided he'd never ever be good enough in all those other areas,  and decided to make the change as quickly as they could.   Rip off the bandaid,  so to speak.

 

I admit,  this is counter-intuitive to what we normally think gets a front office exec fired....   but it wasn't in this case.   And I trust McClain.  He's one of the top football writers in the country.   Highly respected.   If this is what he's reporting,  I thought I should post this.   Sorry I didn't get it done sooner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I'll try to be as simple and straight forward as possible.    If indeed this is the best time of year to change your GM,  and, as you noted,  it's not even close,   then the logic should flow that this is when ALL teams change their GM's.    But they don't.    They rarely do.    Perhaps once every two or three years.    That's typically it.   Otherwise,  all the other GM's are changed around the first week of January after the season ends.      I think that's a pretty slam dunk argument.

 

I totally understand that this is not typical (although it's happened a few times in the last few years, so maybe it's becoming more common). But 'this is how everyone does it' isn't really proof that it's the right way.

 

And I understand that this is my opinion, which might be totally different from general consensus. It's just the way I see it.

 

On its merits, I'm sure you can see the challenges that hiring a GM in January, asking him to run FA in March, and asking him to run the draft in late April. Along the way, he has to learn his scouting staff, understand how they write reports, etc. He has to understand his coaching staff, what they want in players, etc. And a lot of the time, he has to hire a coach. And of course, he's learning the ins and outs of the job himself. Because of these things, when you hire a new GM in January, you're not getting optimal performance out of him or his staff in that first season anyway. It's impossible, and every GM mentions how much different Year 1 is from Year 2.

 

Quote

If you change the GM now, in the spring,  you've pretty much sacrificed not just the draft,  you've sacrificed the entire season.  (Not saying it's impossible to have a good year in this situation)   but the new GM has now inherited his head coach,  the whole coaching staff,  the whole front office, includuing college and pro scouting directors and ALL the scouts.    Those aren't his guy and may not share his vision.    And most all the top ones have already been hired and have jobs elsewhere with the other 31 teams.   The pickings are slim in May/Jue. 

 

So now,  the new GM gets to re-work his coaching staff and front office the followig winter,  in January,  when it's peak hiring and firing season.   

 

Look....   I've argued that making the change now,  while not ideal,  is still doable...   you can still put the lipstick on the pig.    But if given a choice,  I think the NFL community has clearly demonstrated they rather make the changes in Winter....    they're willing to do it in the spring,  but they're prefer not to if possible.

 

I think the bolded is overstated, and it overvalues the present season. It also undermines the months of work that go into developing your offseason strategy. The current year's FA/draft planning starts well before January; asking a guy to come in in late January and execute that plan well is kind of unreasonable.

 

Hiring a new GM in January is like hiring a new coach in June. The GM is judged primarily on what he does in March and April. If you hire him nine months in advance, it stands to reason he'll be better prepared to do the job.

 

Let's say the Texans fired Brian Gaine in January 2020. No one would be criticizing the timing, even though the new GM would be completely hamstrung for that busy season. In this case, they're going to hire a new GM who will be much better prepared for 2020 free agency and the draft. 

 

End of the day, you're hiring the guy who will run your entire football operation, and if you get it right, he'll be there for a decade, or more. Whether you hire a new GM in January and ask him to get your next season going, or you let your current GM handle free agency and the draft and then fire him in June, you're still not getting optimal performance from that season. But deciding who will run your operation isn't about one season, it's about the overall direction of your franchise.

 

If Irsay replaced Grigson in June 2016, it probably wouldn't have changed much for the 2016 season, but it would have meant dramatic differences for 2017. Even if Irsay let Grigson run the 2017 draft and FA, then hired Ballard in June 2017, Ballard still would have been on the same track he's on now -- new deputies in June 2017,  new coach in 2018, strong draft in 2018. 

 

I also think the "slim pickings" argument is overstated. The Colts hired Ballard in late January; he had already declined the Niners, who fired their GM three weeks earlier than the Colts, but hired Lynch the same day the Colts hired Ballard. Sought after GM candidates decline interview requests in January for multiple reasons. Sometimes they're blocked by their present team.

 

But there's always a legitimate pipeline for future GMs, and they get hired every year. Joe Douglas has been a strong candidate for years, he got hired in June. Nick Caserio has been a strong candidate for years, he's evidently interested in the Texans job. There are others that have been in the mix for several years -- Eliot Wolf, George Paton, Scott Fitterer, Trent Kirchner, (all four of them interviewed with the Colts in 2017), Jeff Hortiz, Mike Borgonzi, Terry McDonough, Jimmy Raye is still out there, Jeff Ireland and Scott Piolo are gonna get another chance, etc. 

 

One other thing, I think there are fewer problems getting candidates to agree to interview and getting teams to grant interview access in June than in January. At least, in theory.

 

A lot of this angst about being early and being first is, IMO, just antsy fans and media. When you look at the bigger picture, taking your time -- which is easier to do in June than in January -- is always better than making a hurried decision from a limited pool of candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how is it tampering if it's for a promotion? if the Pat's wanna cry everytime someone tries to hire Nick guess they should make him GM 

 

this dont make sense to me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kraft finds a way again to keep the near irreplaceable members of his staff in tact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Anyone else think it’s absolutely hilarious to see the one organization that cheats every time they can, start waiving the rule book at other teams?

so true then when teams use the rule book against them they cry 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, krunk said:

Kraft finds a way again to keep the near irreplaceable members of his staff in tact.

 

** John McClain of the Houston Chronicle reports that Caserio “has a clause in his contract that says he can’t interview with other teams.” **

 

I'm pretty sure there was extra pay in his contract for that as well.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 1:16 AM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

** John McClain of the Houston Chronicle reports that Caserio “has a clause in his contract that says he can’t interview with other teams.” **

 

I'm pretty sure there was extra pay in his contract for that as well.

Seems like this would break SEVERAL rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, csmopar said:

Seems like this would break SEVERAL rules

 

Quite possible.  I thought I had heard of a similar no contact clause being invalidated by the league some time ago.  And it may be in regards to this part of the tampering rule-

 

"...  inquiring club is prepared to offer a position as a high-level employee  (doesn't get much higher than General Manager, I would say) . . . the employer club may not deny the employee the opportunity to discuss and accept such employment."

 

Evidently Robert Kraft and Cal McNair talked, no discussions/no trades/no tampering charges.

 

But Caserio's contract with the Patriots is ending immediately following the 2020 draft. It's possible the Texans might go 2019 without a true GM.  This could get interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 10:41 AM, ColtsBlueFL said:

But Caserio's contract with the Patriots is ending immediately following the 2020 draft. It's possible the Texans might go 2019 without a true GM.  This could get interesting.

 

Which means, if they hire him, it will be in May or June of 2020. Again, I'm thinking this might be a thing moving forward.

 

Quote

** John McClain of the Houston Chronicle reports that Caserio “has a clause in his contract that says he can’t interview with other teams.” **

 

Link discussing this: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/14/report-nick-caserio-has-a-contractual-provision-that-keeps-him-from-leaving-new-england/

 

I'm confused by this. It's strange that the NFL would allow this kind of provision in a contract, when rules state a team can't block an employee from interviewing with another team for a promotion. Can you do this with any front office employee, whether he has roster input or not? What about an assistant coach?

 

I was thinking the terms referred to in Caserio's contract were that he has some control over the 53 man roster, so even a GM-type position is still considered a lateral move. And apparently, the Texans weren't aware of whatever the terms were, so the confusion isn't just from the media and fans, but also exists among the teams. That might be even worse if teams are using this kind of "no interview" clause to keep personnel guys from leaving.

 

The Patriots are masters of pushing the envelope. This just seems counter to a specific league rule designed to promote employee development.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 10:04 AM, Superman said:

 

I totally understand that this is not typical (although it's happened a few times in the last few years, so maybe it's becoming more common). But 'this is how everyone does it' isn't really proof that it's the right way.

 

And I understand that this is my opinion, which might be totally different from general consensus. It's just the way I see it.

 

On its merits, I'm sure you can see the challenges that hiring a GM in January, asking him to run FA in March, and asking him to run the draft in late April. Along the way, he has to learn his scouting staff, understand how they write reports, etc. He has to understand his coaching staff, what they want in players, etc. And a lot of the time, he has to hire a coach. And of course, he's learning the ins and outs of the job himself. Because of these things, when you hire a new GM in January, you're not getting optimal performance out of him or his staff in that first season anyway. It's impossible, and every GM mentions how much different Year 1 is from Year 2.

 

 

I think the bolded is overstated, and it overvalues the present season. It also undermines the months of work that go into developing your offseason strategy. The current year's FA/draft planning starts well before January; asking a guy to come in in late January and execute that plan well is kind of unreasonable.

 

Hiring a new GM in January is like hiring a new coach in June. The GM is judged primarily on what he does in March and April. If you hire him nine months in advance, it stands to reason he'll be better prepared to do the job.

 

Let's say the Texans fired Brian Gaine in January 2020. No one would be criticizing the timing, even though the new GM would be completely hamstrung for that busy season. In this case, they're going to hire a new GM who will be much better prepared for 2020 free agency and the draft. 

 

End of the day, you're hiring the guy who will run your entire football operation, and if you get it right, he'll be there for a decade, or more. Whether you hire a new GM in January and ask him to get your next season going, or you let your current GM handle free agency and the draft and then fire him in June, you're still not getting optimal performance from that season. But deciding who will run your operation isn't about one season, it's about the overall direction of your franchise.

 

If Irsay replaced Grigson in June 2016, it probably wouldn't have changed much for the 2016 season, but it would have meant dramatic differences for 2017. Even if Irsay let Grigson run the 2017 draft and FA, then hired Ballard in June 2017, Ballard still would have been on the same track he's on now -- new deputies in June 2017,  new coach in 2018, strong draft in 2018. 

 

I also think the "slim pickings" argument is overstated. The Colts hired Ballard in late January; he had already declined the Niners, who fired their GM three weeks earlier than the Colts, but hired Lynch the same day the Colts hired Ballard. Sought after GM candidates decline interview requests in January for multiple reasons. Sometimes they're blocked by their present team.

 

But there's always a legitimate pipeline for future GMs, and they get hired every year. Joe Douglas has been a strong candidate for years, he got hired in June. Nick Caserio has been a strong candidate for years, he's evidently interested in the Texans job. There are others that have been in the mix for several years -- Eliot Wolf, George Paton, Scott Fitterer, Trent Kirchner, (all four of them interviewed with the Colts in 2017), Jeff Hortiz, Mike Borgonzi, Terry McDonough, Jimmy Raye is still out there, Jeff Ireland and Scott Piolo are gonna get another chance, etc. 

 

One other thing, I think there are fewer problems getting candidates to agree to interview and getting teams to grant interview access in June than in January. At least, in theory.

 

A lot of this angst about being early and being first is, IMO, just antsy fans and media. When you look at the bigger picture, taking your time -- which is easier to do in June than in January -- is always better than making a hurried decision from a limited pool of candidates.

 

As you have noticed,  I have taken a long time to respond.   Apologies in advance,  my response is long....

 

Everything you think I "overstated" I personally think I understated.     And I think all the arguments you used to make a case that the spring is more ideal than the winter is hugely overstated.

 

Look at the last sentence of your post...    how you describe "looking at the bigger picture and taking your time..."        Says who?      Who says an owner didn't look at the bigger picture in December as a disappointing season was coming to an end and that a decision was rushed?    That's entirely written by you as opinion based on zero known facts.    And it's your interpretation that better decisions can be made in the spring.   Huh?    When it's too late to fire the HC and his staff that gave you the disappointing previous season that got the GM fired in the first place.    Now, your new GM has to deal with a HC and staff that he didn't hire.   Now everyone in the building is walking on pins and neeedles wondering if they'll get fired or be retained.   So,  all the advantages of doing those decisions in winter of Y1 for the new GM,  now have to be done in winter of Y2.     So, if they're going to be done,  how is it better to flush a year down the drain and do it the following year?

 

I see lots of opinion,  and very little fact.    You've tossed out a number of interesting names that are available now....    nice names and none were in the running for a GM job 5 months ago,  and suddenly you think the next hot GM is in the pile?    I appreciate that Nick Caserio might be the exception to the Patriots rule from the BB tree....    but BB has a poor record of turning out good HC's elsewhere.   He might someday....   but not so far.    Front office is decent I think, so maybe Caserio is good?

 

But Don't you want to get all of this done sooner than later?    Don't you want to rip the band-aid off ASAP?

 

Doesn't the new GM want to hire his own guy,  his own staff, ASAP?     And if you think the answer is no,  then why don't all GM's who get hired in January,  do it your way?    Why don't they keep the staff,  the HC,  coordinators and assistants,  all the front office types and the scouts,  and do all the changes the following winter?     Why don't they do that?

 

They don't,  do they?

 

I really wish this was just a simple thought experiment.   That you were simply making a case that making a GM change in the spring is do-able and not anythig else.    Some here don't understand when it happens at all in the spring and I've made the argument several times that the spring isn't as bad as you think.    Doable under certain circumstances is perfectly OK.

 

But you're not doing that.     You're not arguing for doable.

 

Instead you're arguing for desireable.    And you think it's an easy decision.    I confess that even as your biggest admirer,  perhaps BECAUSE I'm your biggest admirer,  I find this position more than a little head scratching.....

 

Just saying....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

As you have noticed,  I have taken a long time to respond.   Apologies in advance,  my response is long....

 

 

This will be way too long, sorry...

 

You're making a lot of assumptions that don't always hold up:

 

1) Whether a new GM wants to hire a new coaching staff or not, every GM does not hire a new coaching staff in Year 1.

 

2) Not every GM change is the result of a disappointing season, and not every disappointing season is linked to a bad coaching performance. The Texans didn't have a bad season, and Gaine wasn't terrible. Evidently they want to keep O'Brien and pair him with a hand chosen GM. 

 

3) The hiring of a GM does not have to be inexorably linked to the hiring of a head coach. 

 

4) Retaining a head coach with a new GM doesn't necessarily mean flushing Year 1 down the toilet. 

 

And then a couple statements that are just inaccurate:

 

1) You said the GM candidates I mentioned were not in the running five months ago. That's false. Those are named candidates every year for the last three or four years. The same way Ballard was in the pipeline for several years. Joe Douglas has been considered as a GM candidate for at least two years. The pipeline doesn't get emptied every January. Same is true for head coaching candidates.

 

2) Specific to the Texans and Caserio, it's not about whether he will be a good GM, because no one knows. The fact of the matter is he's obviously the guy they want. Waiting until June didn't cost them a shot at their hand picked GM candidate. 

 

3) New GMs hired in January actually DO keep virtually all of their front office staff in place for that first FA/draft period. They change their deputies and make scouting changes after the draft. This is typical. (It helps if you acknowledge that the process and timeline for hiring front office staff is different from that for hiring a coaching staff.) 

 

 

Here's what I'm saying: I don't think that making this change in June in any given year costs a team a chance at interviewing from a strong pool of GM candidates. As a matter of fact, interviewing in June probably makes it easier to talk to the best candidates. Teams are more willing to grant access to key, contracted personnel (rules state they have to, I believe, which is what makes Caserio's contract so interesting), and high-ranked deputies are, in theory, going to be more willing to take time to prepare for an interview, since it's not interrupting their draft season prep. (Similar to Reich not being open to interviews until the Eagles' season was over.)

 

I'm saying that while January is the best time to hire a head coach, I don't think January is the best time to hire a GM. You're giving him three weeks to get ready for the Combine, six weeks to get ready for free agency, and four months to get ready for the draft. (And if you're asking him to make a coaching decision in those first two weeks, you're putting even more on his plate.) Just like you make coaching changes when the season ends, it makes sense to make GM changes when the player acquisition cycle ends. You're giving him a longer runway to get ready for his first real year in the position.

 

I'm saying that if the Texans had fired Gaine in January 2020, no one would be critical of their timing, which is silly because whoever they hire now will have an additional six months to get ready for their next player acquisition cycle. (Same for the Jets and Douglas.)

 

I'm saying that I think the pipeline of future GMs is strong and deep. 

 

I'm saying that it's not even necessarily a matter of waiting. For instance, I think the Colts would have been better off firing Ryan Grigson in June 2016 instead of January 2017. We can actually move the timeline up six months, and now we're talking about doing this sooner, not later. (Revisit the first line of my first post in this thread.)

 

Most importantly, I'm saying that a big picture view of this process prioritizes the long term good of the franchise over the current year's draft. So even if the owner has decided that he's going to make a change soon, he might figure that it's better to let his current GM handle the coming draft and make the change later, rather than hiring a new guy and giving him four months to learn the job, evaluate his roster and coaching staff, run free agency and the draft.. all with the personnel men and scouts that were hired by the previous GM. That might undermine the first year, but if you're hiring a GM to lead your franchise for the next decade, that's okay.

 

This is different. I don't care. How it's always been done doesn't hold a lot of weight, IMO. Evaluate your processes, just like you evaluate your personnel. Don't let good enough be the enemy of better. To me, it's better to hire a GM in June, let him shape his front office and scouting staff, take time to evaluate the roster and even the coaching staff, and then he's in a position of strength for his first year, rather than scrambling for his first four months. All JMO.

 

Last thing, that doesn't mean I think a team can't get this right if they do it in January. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 12:00 PM, Superman said:

 

This will be way too long, sorry...

 

You're making a lot of assumptions that don't always hold up:

 

1) Whether a new GM wants to hire a new coaching staff or not, every GM does not hire a new coaching staff in Year 1.

 

2) Not every GM change is the result of a disappointing season, and not every disappointing season is linked to a bad coaching performance. The Texans didn't have a bad season, and Gaine wasn't terrible. Evidently they want to keep O'Brien and pair him with a hand chosen GM. 

 

3) The hiring of a GM does not have to be inexorably linked to the hiring of a head coach. 

 

4) Retaining a head coach with a new GM doesn't necessarily mean flushing Year 1 down the toilet. 

 

And then a couple statements that are just inaccurate:

 

1) You said the GM candidates I mentioned were not in the running five months ago. That's false. Those are named candidates every year for the last three or four years. The same way Ballard was in the pipeline for several years. Joe Douglas has been considered as a GM candidate for at least two years. The pipeline doesn't get emptied every January. Same is true for head coaching candidates.

 

2) Specific to the Texans and Caserio, it's not about whether he will be a good GM, because no one knows. The fact of the matter is he's obviously the guy they want. Waiting until June didn't cost them a shot at their hand picked GM candidate. 

 

3) New GMs hired in January actually DO keep virtually all of their front office staff in place for that first FA/draft period. They change their deputies and make scouting changes after the draft. This is typical. (It helps if you acknowledge that the process and timeline for hiring front office staff is different from that for hiring a coaching staff.) 

 

 

Here's what I'm saying: I don't think that making this change in June in any given year costs a team a chance at interviewing from a strong pool of GM candidates. As a matter of fact, interviewing in June probably makes it easier to talk to the best candidates. Teams are more willing to grant access to key, contracted personnel (rules state they have to, I believe, which is what makes Caserio's contract so interesting), and high-ranked deputies are, in theory, going to be more willing to take time to prepare for an interview, since it's not interrupting their draft season prep. (Similar to Reich not being open to interviews until the Eagles' season was over.)

 

I'm saying that while January is the best time to hire a head coach, I don't think January is the best time to hire a GM. You're giving him three weeks to get ready for the Combine, six weeks to get ready for free agency, and four months to get ready for the draft. (And if you're asking him to make a coaching decision in those first two weeks, you're putting even more on his plate.) Just like you make coaching changes when the season ends, it makes sense to make GM changes when the player acquisition cycle ends. You're giving him a longer runway to get ready for his first real year in the position.

 

I'm saying that if the Texans had fired Gaine in January 2020, no one would be critical of their timing, which is silly because whoever they hire now will have an additional six months to get ready for their next player acquisition cycle. (Same for the Jets and Douglas.)

 

I'm saying that I think the pipeline of future GMs is strong and deep. 

 

I'm saying that it's not even necessarily a matter of waiting. For instance, I think the Colts would have been better off firing Ryan Grigson in June 2016 instead of January 2017. We can actually move the timeline up six months, and now we're talking about doing this sooner, not later. (Revisit the first line of my first post in this thread.)

 

Most importantly, I'm saying that a big picture view of this process prioritizes the long term good of the franchise over the current year's draft. So even if the owner has decided that he's going to make a change soon, he might figure that it's better to let his current GM handle the coming draft and make the change later, rather than hiring a new guy and giving him four months to learn the job, evaluate his roster and coaching staff, run free agency and the draft.. all with the personnel men and scouts that were hired by the previous GM. That might undermine the first year, but if you're hiring a GM to lead your franchise for the next decade, that's okay.

 

This is different. I don't care. How it's always been done doesn't hold a lot of weight, IMO. Evaluate your processes, just like you evaluate your personnel. Don't let good enough be the enemy of better. To me, it's better to hire a GM in June, let him shape his front office and scouting staff, take time to evaluate the roster and even the coaching staff, and then he's in a position of strength for his first year, rather than scrambling for his first four months. All JMO.

 

Last thing, that doesn't mean I think a team can't get this right if they do it in January. 

 

OK......    you're being way too cute and clever trying to make a point.

 

To the first set of numbers,  1-4,  that I put into bold,  OK,  fine.   It's not a 100% deal.  Didn't mean to suggest that it was.     But the percentagees are overwhelmingly in my favor.   Likely to the tune of 80-90 percent.    So, you can point to 10-20 percent of the GM hires that didn't follow the standard usually done protocol.    That was a lot of work for 10-20 percent.  

 

Now....   to the second set of numbers,  1-3 that are now in bold.   

 

To #1.   OK, your pool of candidates,  but your view has been in the candidate pipeline for 3-4 years.    But they HAVEN'T BEEN HIRED.   So,  they were not viewed as the best of the best.   They got interviewed at least once,  and sometimes multiple times,  and were not hired.   So at that time,  they apparently were not viewed as the best of the best.    All those inerviews and they were not hired.    They look more like the leftovers,  and not the top candidates.   Not a compelling argument.

 

To #2.    Caserio is the guy they want out of the remaining candidates.    If Gaine had been let go in January,  it's likely Caserio would've been the guy --- the Pats connection.   But there might've been other candidates.    Just as if Gaine were fired in January of 20,  Caserio would likely be the guy,   but maybe someone else surfaces.   

 

To #3.  OK....   do you remember the first set of points you were making in this post.   About how I was dealing in absolutes.   In 100% situaiton.   You were explaining that there exceptions,  that things sometimes happened differently.     The words may be mine,  but the meaning was yours.   Sound familiar?    I'm sorry, but you just did the exact same thing to me.    Your #3 stats that virtually ALL GM's don't make moves when the show up.   That they virtually all wait until after the draft.    You've got zero data to back that up and are claiming this is a 100% absolute certainty.    Just what you complained about with me.   You didn't give me the same courtest that perhaps 10-20 percent of GM's show up and make changes at the start. 

 

As to everything else....    I'd say this....    this feels like a thought experiment.   I know you believe what you're writing here,  but the arguments are just not Superman level for me.    And you know you have a high batting average with me (or to keep it in football terms,  completion percentage)  of making me re-think a position, of re-examining my viewpoint.   You're a thought leader here.     You're perhaps THEE thought leader here.   And yet,  I'm just not swayed.   At all.

And this is rare for me.   This feels like one of those ESPN morning debate shows where one of the two guys takes the much harder to make case of the argument.   As I said in a previous post,  lots of opinion,  but not a lot to back it up.    Because your argument is rarely done in the real world.

 

By the way,   I'm guessing you're new to this view.   I don't recall you ever expressing it before.  Certainly not when we were interviewing Chris Ballard in January of 2017.    I don't think you said Irsay should wait until May to fire Grigson and hire his replacement.   So, I'm guessing a lightbuld has gone off over your head and you've got a new viewpoint?   This is not a knock, I'm just making sure we're all on the same page.   We're all entitled to have a change of viewpoint.  Just clarifying.

 

I just wish there was a way to bridge ths gap of ideas....   But it doesn't feel like there's much common ground here.    You've got an outside-the-box view on this one....   (and sometimes I love outside of the box thinking, just not this time)   while my view is more traditional.   

 

Oh well...    thanks for the exchange...   sorry it took so long...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 11:52 AM, Superman said:

 

Which means, if they hire him, it will be in May or June of 2020. Again, I'm thinking this might be a thing moving forward.

 

 

Who knows, might be like teams that are  searching for the next Sean McVay.

 

Quote

Link discussing this: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/14/report-nick-caserio-has-a-contractual-provision-that-keeps-him-from-leaving-new-england/

 

I'm confused by this. It's strange that the NFL would allow this kind of provision in a contract, when rules state a team can't block an employee from interviewing with another team for a promotion. Can you do this with any front office employee, whether he has roster input or not? What about an assistant coach?

 

But it is also a contract clause relinquishing that right (that the employee supposedly knew of) and signed. Possibly with increased monetary compensation and a full contract guarantee?

 

The Rooney Rule applies to Head Coaches, General Managers, and 'Similar front office positions'. So I guess it might be the same here. But what, specifically, exactly what does the leagues consider 'similar'? And can the league, at their discretion, void a contract clause that overrides the official league rules?

 

Quote

 

I was thinking the terms referred to in Caserio's contract were that he has some control over the 53 man roster, so even a GM-type position is still considered a lateral move. And apparently, the Texans weren't aware of whatever the terms were, so the confusion isn't just from the media and fans, but also exists among the teams. That might be even worse if teams are using this kind of "no interview" clause to keep personnel guys from leaving.

 

As above, how can we know?

 

Quote

The Patriots are masters of pushing the envelope. This just seems counter to a specific league rule designed to promote employee development.

 

Yes, but there are bundles of sour grapes there as well.  It started with Easterby leaving for the Texans-

 

*************************************************************

"Jack Easterby, regarded as a player favorite and an key member of the Patriots' organization, ended his six-year tenure with New England in February to latch on with the Houston Texans in April as their "executive vice president of team development."

 

That move apparently didn't sit well with the Patriots, who are "livid" with Bill O'Brien's Texans for hiring Easterby.

 

Patriots are most "irate" with Easterby himself for taking his intimate knowledge New England's inner workings to an AFC rival with several former Pats assistants -- including

O'Brien -- on staff.

 

As Bedard notes, Easterby had aspirations beyond character coach and hired the same agent (Bob Lamonte) who represents Patriots director of player personnel Nick Caserio to pursue them. That's well within his right, but "certain influential members" of the Patriots were incensed that he chose the Texans.

*************************************************************

 

Not long ago, Easterby goes back to the Super Bowl ring ceremony to get his ring.  Maybe he 'chat's' with Caserio, then something about a possible GM job opening up creeps in to the conversation.  Sometime later, Bill Belichick finds out, calls Kraft and they put the skids on it all by filing tampering charges.

 

At this time, I remain steadfast the Texans will hire Caserio immediately following the draft in 2020. They will make due with Easterby, their college scouting director, personnel director, etc...  this year and the off season until Caserio is free to jump ship ( my guess 4/27/2020 )

 

And if ever there was a team trying to make a full on Patriots replica, it is now the Texans.  Unless Patricia (Lions) and Vrabel (Titans) rob the rest of the Pats staff in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

But they HAVEN'T BEEN HIRED.   So,  they were not viewed as the best of the best.

 

Isn't that also true of the candidates that you think teams are in a hurry to hire in January?

 

Quote

They look more like the leftovers,  and not the top candidates.   Not a compelling argument.

 

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.
 

Quote

Caserio is the guy they want out of the remaining candidates.    If Gaine had been let go in January,  it's likely Caserio would've been the guy --- the Pats connection.   But there might've been other candidates.    Just as if Gaine were fired in January of 20,  Caserio would likely be the guy,   but maybe someone else surfaces.

 

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.

 

Quote

Your #3 stats that virtually ALL GM's don't make moves when the show up.   That they virtually all wait until after the draft.    You've got zero data to back that up and are claiming this is a 100% absolute certainty.    Just what you complained about with me.   You didn't give me the same courtest that perhaps 10-20 percent of GM's show up and make changes at the start. 

 

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. 

 

Quote

Because your argument is rarely done in the real world.

 

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.

 

Quote

I'd say this....    this feels like a thought experiment.

 

...

 

By the way,   I'm guessing you're new to this view.   I don't recall you ever expressing it before.  Certainly not when we were interviewing Chris Ballard in January of 2017.    I don't think you said Irsay should wait until May to fire Grigson and hire his replacement.   So, I'm guessing a lightbuld has gone off over your head and you've got a new viewpoint?   This is not a knock, I'm just making sure we're all on the same page.   We're all entitled to have a change of viewpoint.  Just clarifying.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Not long ago, Easterby goes back to the Super Bowl ring ceremony to get his ring.  Maybe he 'chat's' with Caserio, then something about a possible GM job opening up creeps in to the conversation.  Sometime later, Bill Belichick finds out, calls Kraft and they put the skids on it all by filing tampering charges.

 

 

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...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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...

 

It seems that way, as well as the way things might have gone down (in a general sense).  Nick Caserio (IMHO) will join Bill O'Brien and Jack Easterby on the Texans by May 2020. I just know it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

 

Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.

 

We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.

 

As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......

 

Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.

 

Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."

 

By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.

 

I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.

 

This again boils down to you hanging on to 'this is how it's always been done.' And you don't get that I don't care about that rationale. I think it can be done better. Which is why, in my first post in this thread, I said "to me, it's a no brainer." To me. It should be obvious that this is my stated preference, not me saying that teams that don't do it this way are stupid.

 

There should be nothing more that I have to say about that, except you continue to rely on that appeal to authority, and I'm telling you that 'how it's always been done' isn't legitimate reason for not examining potential alternatives. Not just in this area, but in everything. 

 

Quote

I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP. 

 

You're missing an important detail, and I think it's because you've put my argument in a box and are unwilling to actually examine it on its merits.

 

As I said initially, and have said since, my argument is to make this change six months sooner, not six months later. "Imagine if we had fired Grigson in June 2016 instead of January 2017." Did you miss that part, again? What about "if the Texans had waited until January 2020 to fire Gaine..."? 

 

I want him in asap. You want him asap, but not until January.

 

My statement about it being just one draft is referencing the worst case scenario, which is 'we just blew a draft cycle by letting a lame duck GM stay,' to which I say 'get over it, I'm okay with that if that's what it takes to get the guy I want in the building, with the staff he wants.' And that's where my argument about it potentially being easier to interview candidates in the down season after the draft is critical. The Jets wanted Joe Douglas; he evidently didn't want to entertain a move during draft season, but jumped at it in May/June. (There's the matter of moving his family during the school year, etc.) In theory, this approach could make it easier to interview good candidates. Whether you agree with that or not, whether it's important to you or not, this is mostly an aside. As I said, this was my response to the alarmist reaction of 'they just blew a draft!' Which I think is overstated, especially in the Texans' case.

 

Quote

 

In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."

 

Not at all. Again, if Ballard started in June 2016, he theoretically could have changed coaches a year sooner. 

 

Quote

Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?  [...]  A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.   [...]   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.

 

This is a hindsight fallacy. Go back to the Texans wanting to hire Caserio. I'm not arguing that he's going to be a great GM, I'm arguing that he's the guy they want to hire, and he's available in June. Same for the Jets and Douglas. The Chiefs and Veach. 

 

We know that every person hired doesn't succeed. I never argued that they do. That's true of whoever you rush to hire in January. The point is that there is always a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose. I won't be retracting that, I firmly believe it, and I said it when the Colts were interviewing coaches in 2012, when they interviewed GMs in 2017, and when they interviewed coaches in 2018. You choosing to reject that is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. There are always qualified candidates. Choosing the right one is a different story.

 

And again, if there's one guy you really, desperately want, why wait until January to get him?

 

Quote

Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  

 

You could give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that if I'm saying it, I mean it. Especially this far into the discussion... 

 

And going back to what I said earlier, this is and always has been my opinion. I'm not offering studies and conclusive evidence to support this opinion because it's a personal preference, it's what I think would be best (although I have offered evidence and rationale to support my opinion, you've just chosen to reject, for reasons I don't agree with). 

 

I'm okay with the disagreement. What I find personally off-putting is the insistence that, because you don't understand my angle, it means I either haven't actually thought it through, or I don't actually believe it. As I said earlier, I understand that general consensus disagrees with my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to conform. The fact that I'm presenting an argument in earnest should be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what worse @Superman and @NewColtsFan writing novels back and forth on what month is best to hire a gm or my reading them without skimming.  haha 

Can't wait for the offseason to be over! 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This again boils down to you hanging on to 'this is how it's always been done.' And you don't get that I don't care about that rationale. I think it can be done better. Which is why, in my first post in this thread, I said "to me, it's a no brainer." To me. It should be obvious that this is my stated preference, not me saying that teams that don't do it this way are stupid.

 

There should be nothing more that I have to say about that, except you continue to rely on that appeal to authority, and I'm telling you that 'how it's always been done' isn't legitimate reason for not examining potential alternatives. Not just in this area, but in everything. 

 

 

You're missing an important detail, and I think it's because you've put my argument in a box and are unwilling to actually examine it on its merits.

 

As I said initially, and have said since, my argument is to make this change six months sooner, not six months later. "Imagine if we had fired Grigson in June 2016 instead of January 2017." Did you miss that part, again? What about "if the Texans had waited until January 2020 to fire Gaine..."? 

 

I want him in asap. You want him asap, but not until January.

 

My statement about it being just one draft is referencing the worst case scenario, which is 'we just blew a draft cycle by letting a lame duck GM stay,' to which I say 'get over it, I'm okay with that if that's what it takes to get the guy I want in the building, with the staff he wants.' And that's where my argument about it potentially being easier to interview candidates in the down season after the draft is critical. The Jets wanted Joe Douglas; he evidently didn't want to entertain a move during draft season, but jumped at it in May/June. (There's the matter of moving his family during the school year, etc.) In theory, this approach could make it easier to interview good candidates. Whether you agree with that or not, whether it's important to you or not, this is mostly an aside. As I said, this was my response to the alarmist reaction of 'they just blew a draft!' Which I think is overstated, especially in the Texans' case.

 

 

Not at all. Again, if Ballard started in June 2016, he theoretically could have changed coaches a year sooner. 

 

 

This is a hindsight fallacy. Go back to the Texans wanting to hire Caserio. I'm not arguing that he's going to be a great GM, I'm arguing that he's the guy they want to hire, and he's available in June. Same for the Jets and Douglas. The Chiefs and Veach. 

 

We know that every person hired doesn't succeed. I never argued that they do. That's true of whoever you rush to hire in January. The point is that there is always a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose. I won't be retracting that, I firmly believe it, and I said it when the Colts were interviewing coaches in 2012, when they interviewed GMs in 2017, and when they interviewed coaches in 2018. You choosing to reject that is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. There are always qualified candidates. Choosing the right one is a different story.

 

And again, if there's one guy you really, desperately want, why wait until January to get him?

 

 

You could give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that if I'm saying it, I mean it. Especially this far into the discussion... 

 

And going back to what I said earlier, this is and always has been my opinion. I'm not offering studies and conclusive evidence to support this opinion because it's a personal preference, it's what I think would be best (although I have offered evidence and rationale to support my opinion, you've just chosen to reject, for reasons I don't agree with). 

 

I'm okay with the disagreement. What I find personally off-putting is the insistence that, because you don't understand my angle, it means I either haven't actually thought it through, or I don't actually believe it. As I said earlier, I understand that general consensus disagrees with my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to conform. The fact that I'm presenting an argument in earnest should be enough.

 

Sigh...........

 

This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.

 

I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.

 

Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.

 

Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  

Was that clear enough for you?    

 

If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.

 

I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.

 

As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.  

 

Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.   

 

As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.  That's very Irish of you.

 

Is that something Irish people do?  :scratch:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

This is beyond really frustrating.

 

For you and me, both.

 

Quote

You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done. 

 

Welcome to the club.

 

Exhibit A:

 

Quote

when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.

 

My first post said: "To me, it's a no-brainer that this is a better time of year to hire a new GM than January. It's not even close."

 

Second post: "And I understand that this is my opinion, which might be totally different from general consensus. It's just the way I see it."

 

A later post: "Last thing, that doesn't mean I think a team can't get this right if they do it in January."

 

Similar expressions have been used by me throughout this debate. At no point have I acted like this is anything more than my opinion, my personal preference. I have not cast aspersions at any team that hires a GM in January. I stated my preference as just that -- my preference. 

 

Quote

If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable...

 

If you want the GM in asap, how is firing Grigson and hiring Ballard six months sooner not desirable?
 

Quote

 

Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends. [...]

 

I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.

 

 

First bolded is obvious. That's why this debate even exists.

 

Second bolded is something I disagree with, and is a main component of my argument. Aside from hiring the GM, teams make scouting and front office changes after the draft, typically. They start working on their scouting plans and their player boards in late summer. They hit the road in September. During the regular season, they scout other teams/players, in preparation for FA. Etc. By January, the personnel side of the building is in mid-swing, getting ready for the player acquisition cycle (Combine, FA, draft, UDFAs). 

 

The coaching season ends in January, then if you hire a new coach, he has eight months to get ready for the season. The GM/personnel season ends in May; if you hire a new GM in June, he has 7-9 months to get ready for FA and the draft. The coaching calendar and the personnel calendar are not the same. Hiring GMs on the same schedule as coaches is not optimal. Again,  IMO.

 

Quote

As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.

 

We don't disagree on this, fundamentally.

 

My question is why we're acting like being first to make your hire during the cycle is some kind of recipe for success. The Jets hired Maccagnan in January 2015; they fired him four years later. The Dolphins hired Dennis Hickey in January 2014; they fired him two years later. 

 

My other question is why we're acting like the candidates that are available after January aren't as qualified as the candidates hired in January. Again, Joe Douglas has been on the list at least a couple years. Caserio has been on the list several years. A team doesn't have to make their GM hire in January to get their guy. And no matter when they make their hire, there's no guarantee that they've hired the right candidate.

 

Getting it right is everything. Rushing doesn't help teams get it right.

 

(Edit: My initial post was in response to the idea that a team should hire their GM before all the good candidates are gone. This response speaks to that idea, primarily.)

 

It's also worth mentioning that these stable organizations tend to appoint successors and hire from within, especially at GM. Steelers and Ravens are the examples that come to mind right away. So the January vs June debate really doesn't apply in this case.

 

Quote

You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high qualitySuperman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    

 

Here's my read on this: If you don't see my viewpoint, it means it's a low quality argument. 

 

Is that an unfair synopsis of your statement here?

 

Quote

Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.

 

It's preferable to me. And I said that from the beginning.

 

My feelings are not hurt over this, and I don't think yours are either. But what's wrong with saying 'I don't agree on this, and that's okay, but here's why I think you're wrong'? Instead, you took the angle of 'You don't really believe this, do you? You're just thinking out loud, right?' And I know you didn't say that literally, but that's the way your rhetorical point came across to me.

 

I respect that you think of me as a thought leader on this board, but I'm very okay with being in the minority or even all by myself when people don't agree with me (which isn't that uncommon, to be honest). I post my opinions, then either defend them based on the information I'm aware of, or amend them when new or better information is provided. I don't post my opinions just to have people agree with them.

 

Sorry for the length, again. (You too, @Fluke_33)

Edited by Superman
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...