What does a GM need to be?

[CanadianCat]

6 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Would you go to an accountant who had a degree in English?

Would you take dance lessons from a musician?

Scouting ability is a very big deal for somebody whose primary job is deciding who the most talented 53 players on a roster are. But no, it's not all there is to being a GM.

Scouts by nature only have to present information. They don't necessarily have to make decisions. They can advise on decisions, but they don't have final say.

For a GM, you have to have somebody who knows enough about talent evaluation to make the right choice, and has enough will and nerve to make it and accept the consequences.

Basically, not every scout can become a GM, but every GM should know how to scout.

"Every GM should know how to scout"

 

What does that mean. Does that mean that you are the head of that department or you know how to watch film? I don't think that a GM needs to be the best goat any organization. Obviously having a broad understanding of the organization is important but thateans that your not "the guy" in any department. 

 

Think of project managers. They run billion dollar projects but are not the best carpenter or concrete guy. They are not the best accountant or or guy but the rule requires them to understand and make decisions regarding all those things. But in order to do that on your subject matter experts to provide them with good advice so they're able to make a decision. So I don't think the general manager needs to be an expert in one particular field. This is how the regular World works so why not in football?

[Mr. Scot]

19 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

"Every GM should know how to scout"

What does that mean. Does that mean that you are the head of that department or you know how to watch film? I don't think that a GM needs to be the best goat any organization. Obviously having a broad understanding of the organization is important but thateans that your not "the guy" in any department. 

Think of project managers. They run billion dollar projects but are not the best carpenter or concrete guy. They are not the best accountant or or guy but the rule requires them to understand and make decisions regarding all those things. But in order to do that on your subject matter experts to provide them with good advice so they're able to make a decision. So I don't think the general manager needs to be an expert in one particular field. This is how the regular World works so why not in football?

Would you also like a head coach whose prior experience was all as a baseball coach? I mean, technically they've been a coach before so why insist it be with this sport?

Except no team in the NFL would do that. 

[panthers55]

2 hours ago, Ace_Aladdin said:

This guy scouted that Remmers should be the starting RT over Daryl Williams 

This guy scouted that Shepard should be starting over Byrd 

etc,etc

This guy doesn’t really know what he is talking about majority of time but wants to feel like he has superior knowledge than your lowly average huddler.

This guy is a average joe trying live off the fantasy of being a GM through the huddle.

You would suck as a GM lol 

@panthers55

The difference between scouting talent and deciding who plays on game day isn't as easy as folks on here think. A lineman has to not only have the ability but needs to have chemistry with his teammates and know what to do in every situation on every play. One gaffe by anyone on the line usually results in a busted play. Williams wasn't ready to start when he got here and needed time to improve. When I hear folks say Rivera can't judge talent because he doesn't start young players until he has to due to injury, I chuckle at the naivete of that statement. Rivera sees them everyday and our O line coach is intimately involved all day long with his group. Of course they know who is best in practice and who has the best chemistry. But you don't know who will play best in the game until it happens and you can't just change players like Madden and expect good results. 

No one on here is an expert that I know of and most are just big time fans who want to discuss football. Personalities do clash and some folks are more wrapped up in being right and spend enough time here that their ego gets involved.  In the end we are all Panther fans and should be able to agree to disagree without personal attacks or belittling each other.

[PantherOnTheProwl1523]

1 hour ago, RetiredCollegeCoach said:

A good GM needs to be...

Experienced...like Marty Hurney.

Smart...like Marty Hurney.

Respected...like Marty Hurney.

Loved...like Marty Hurney.

Feared...like Marty Hurney.

Connected...like Marty Hurney.

A leader and a friend...like Marty Hurney.

Good with people...like Marty Hurney.

Good at using the cap to bring us the best possible team he can instead of hoarding the money like an obese moneyball leprechaun like Gettle"""""""man"""""""........like Marty Hurney.

A Nostradamus of the draft...like Marty Hurney.

Willing to understand that a football team is no better than its human core and is not just a collection of plug-and-play chess pieces...like Marty Hurney.

An expert on the balance and composition of a roster...like Marty Hurney.

Have a holistic understanding of football talent and player personality instead of a narrow, scout-like focus on tangibles...like Marty Hurney.

Has lack of common sense when paying players within reason and without overpaying them and putting team in cap hell again. Like Marty Hurney.

[Marguide]

I don't know why I can't copy the link, but there is good article on CBS sports titled something like "Why old-style super scout GM's are a dying breed in the NFL".

It's a good read. It talks about DG and Dorsey and Grigson and others as examples of the changing climate in the NFL.

And again, I apologize that I couldn't paste the link here.

[Mr. Scot]

33 minutes ago, Marguide said:

I don't know why I can't copy the link, but there is good article on CBS sports titled something like "Why old-style super scout GM's are a dying breed in the NFL".

It's a good read. It talks about DG and Dorsey and Grigson and others as examples of the changing climate in the NFL.

And again, I apologize that I couldn't paste the link here.

Gettleman and Dorsey both got GM jobs again in short order. Heck, Grigson even got picked up again as a personnel guy (I forget where).

Cleveland dismissed a "newer type" of GM in order to hire Dorsey.  And the Chiefs replaced Dorsey with another guy who'd worked him his way up through the scouting department in Brett Veach. Likewise, the Packers stuck with longtime personnel guy Brian Gutekunst when they reassigned Ted Thompson and the Ravens are promoting their own scouting guy Eric DeCosta when Ozzie Newsome retires next year.

If the argument is that the NFL is moving away from this sort of GM, and that argument is based on these examples losing their jobs, how does it hold up given that not only are all of them are back at work but other guys with similar backgrounds are getting hired as recently as this year?

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

2 hours ago, RetiredCollegeCoach said:

We're one more key change away...

go on

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

go on

Gee, I wonder if he's talking about Cam Newton 

[BrianS]

No team is ever "one player away".  Saying that implies that you are also one player injury away from disaster.  The Eagles showed us most recently that this is not so.

If Hurney is such a strong candidate as a GM, why in seven years was he never given another chance?  There were in excess of 30 GM's hired between the time Hurney lost his job and now.  Yet I can't remember a single organization ever publicly declaring an interest in bring Hurney on board.  *NOT EVEN THE BROWNS*

Hurney was not considered good enough - four times - to even be considered publicly as a GM candidate for the most inept franchise in the league.

And he's our GM . . . TWICE.

As I said in another thread, it's fine.  He's either going to be an excellent GM this year in his audition for the new owner - in which case, great, he learned and improved.  Or he's going to be terrible, in which case the new owner will give him his walking papers and we'll have a real process that gets us a legit GM candidate.

[Marguide]

53 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Gettleman and Dorsey both got GM jobs again in short order. Heck, Grigson even got picked up again as a personnel guy (I forget where).

Cleveland dismissed a "newer type" of GM in order to hire Dorsey.  And the Chiefs replaced Dorsey with another guy who'd worked him his way up through the scouting department in Brett Veach. Likewise, the Packers stuck with longtime personnel guy Brian Gutekunst when they reassigned Ted Thompson and the Ravens are promoting their own scouting guy Eric DeCosta when Ozzie Newsome retires next year.

If the argument is that the NFL is moving away from this sort of GM, and that argument is based on these examples losing their jobs, how does it hold up given that not only are all of them are back at work but other guys with similar backgrounds are getting hired as recently as this year?

Hey, I didn't write the article, just found it a interesting counterpoint.

And the fact DG and Dorsey got re-hired in itself may not negate a possible new trend. I mean Marty got hired too, right?

[Mr. Scot]

11 minutes ago, Marguide said:

Hey, I didn't write the article, just found it a interesting counterpoint.

And the fact DG and Dorsey got re-hired in itself may not negate a possible new trend. I mean Marty got hired too, right?

Marty getting hired again isn't a trend unless somebody other than Jerry Richardson does it.

I see a lot of authors try to make trends out of stuff that happens when in truth there's often no relation at all. I mean, Grigson getting fired had to do more with the fact that he sucked than anything else.