Heinicke shouldn't be overlooked says Rivera

[Pup McBarky]

34 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Imagine how silly it would be if a manager in a company got a tidbit of subjective input from a data analyst or something, and the manager ultimately made a decision to invest in some new technology or product that lost them millions of dollars. Would the blame fall upon the analyst or the manager?

That analogy does not hold for a professional football team.

 

35 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Should we start randomly blaming Ron for all failed draft picks too? Why is this system of blame so random and arbitrary?

I'm not blaming anyone. Quite the opposite. I'm saying everyone shares some responsibility and since there is no CEO (unless one considers the owner as that), there is nowhere for the buck to stop. In this instance, the buck is exchanged for coins and they are divided among the staff in varying denominations. Technically, as I indicated, the final responsibility falls on the GM. Technically, the owner can act as the CEO and fire the GM if he's unhappy with his performance. But will that solve the problems?

Above, I pointed out your analogy didn't hold for NFL teams. They are not like businesses at all. Professional sports teams are unique in the way they function, which is why some owners (Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder immediately come to mind) assert so much control or micromanage their staffs. Other owners temper this temptation and still others are completely hands off. This is not so different from corporate CEOs and different management styles. The key difference is that a CEO can be fired whereas an owner cannot. Some owners pass this responsibility along to a GM. Some pass it along to a coach who serves as GM, such as Belichick. In many ways, this is the key to the Patriots' success. It may in fact be the key.

A more apt analogy for professional sports teams would be the military. In the military, everyone knows what the chain of command means and who bears what responsibility. This can only happen if there is an ultimate authority who has a vested interest in not only results, but every single detail of how those results are achieved. The analogy isn't perfect, of course, because as I said, professional sports are unique.

The problem is that few NFL teams are willing to adopt this system. There are many reasons for this, but the fact that multiple players make more money than their coaches and often become celebrities, makes the military model difficult to implement.

So, as to blame, if you're looking to blame an individual, sure - in the case of how the roster is built - you can blame the GM. But if you're looking for who is responsible, you cannot settle on any one person.

[Paa Langfart]

4 hours ago, BrianS said:

Bersin is a prime example of JR's influence on our roster.  No way that guy makes any other NFL roster.  Hard pressed to say he would have even been invited to another training camp.

 I could point out that Bersin was one of our most sure handed receivers at one point.  Sad but a fact.

[Shocker]

What a min...you mean the QB?

 

[MasterAwesome]

2 hours ago, Pup McBarky said:

That analogy does not hold for a professional football team.

 

I'm not blaming anyone. Quite the opposite. I'm saying everyone shares some responsibility and since there is no CEO (unless one considers the owner as that), there is nowhere for the buck to stop. In this instance, the buck is exchanged for coins and they are divided among the staff in varying denominations. Technically, as I indicated, the final responsibility falls on the GM. Technically, the owner can act as the CEO and fire the GM if he's unhappy with his performance. But will that solve the problems?

Above, I pointed out your analogy didn't hold for NFL teams. They are not like businesses at all. Professional sports teams are unique in the way they function, which is why some owners (Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder immediately come to mind) assert so much control or micromanage their staffs. Other owners temper this temptation and still others are completely hands off. This is not so different from corporate CEOs and different management styles. The key difference is that a CEO can be fired whereas an owner cannot. Some owners pass this responsibility along to a GM. Some pass it along to a coach who serves as GM, such as Belichick. In many ways, this is the key to the Patriots' success. It may in fact be the key.

A more apt analogy for professional sports teams would be the military. In the military, everyone knows what the chain of command means and who bears what responsibility. This can only happen if there is an ultimate authority who has a vested interest in not only results, but every single detail of how those results are achieved. The analogy isn't perfect, of course, because as I said, professional sports are unique.

The problem is that few NFL teams are willing to adopt this system. There are many reasons for this, but the fact that multiple players make more money than their coaches and often become celebrities, makes the military model difficult to implement.

So, as to blame, if you're looking to blame an individual, sure - in the case of how the roster is built - you can blame the GM. But if you're looking for who is responsible, you cannot settle on any one person.

Yeah I mean I agree with the notion that a single individual is not solely responsible for most decisions...which is why I brought up people like the offensive coordinator and positional coaches who also give roster input. You realize the guy I originally responded to was quoted saying Ron likes to hold onto these players for way too long? It seems like your sentiments should be directed his way. Not only is he attributing these roster decisions to a single person...he’s attributing them to a single person who is not even responsible for said roster decisions. My point was that if you are hellbent on blaming one person for retaining players too long, why the coach instead of the GM?

[Pup McBarky]

2 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

My point was that if you are hellbent on blaming one person for retaining players too long, why the coach instead of the GM?

He's the most visible and recognizable decision-maker and in Rivera's case, he has some seniority. Then, there's Rivera's penchant for giving more playing time to vets instead of younger guys though the prevailing thought around here is the younger guy is better. That penchant likely informs the notion that Rivera is pressuring Hurney to hang on to players too long. And again, there's the sunk cost fallacy...though I dunno which of the two, Rivera or Hurney, is guilty of that, if either...though it appears at least one is.

Granted, none of these are legitimate reasons to blame Rivera. But most folks around here don't need much a reason to start flaming blame threads.

[MasterAwesome]

2 hours ago, Pup McBarky said:

He's the most visible and recognizable decision-maker and in Rivera's case, he has some seniority. Then, there's Rivera's penchant for giving more playing time to vets instead of younger guys though the prevailing thought around here is the younger guy is better. That penchant likely informs the notion that Rivera is pressuring Hurney to hang on to players too long. And again, there's the sunk cost fallacy...though I dunno which of the two, Rivera or Hurney, is guilty of that, if either...though it appears at least one is.

Granted, none of these are legitimate reasons to blame Rivera. But most folks around here don't need much a reason to start flaming blame threads.

If we’re going with that angle then you have to apply that to Dave Gettleman too...i.e. Rivera pressured him to keep Silatolu and Bersin around for all that time and then pressured him to re-sign each of them to one or more additional contracts. Knowing Gettleman’s stubborn egotistical persona, that’s a pretty tough sell imo.

Not sure how much weight the Sunk Cost Fallacy holds with regards to bottom-barrel players like Silatolu and Bersin. Where was the cost? They both played on virtually vet minimum salaries on their last 2-3 contracts. Yeah we invested a 2nd round pick on Silatolu back in 2012...but that was a lifetime ago. Nobody holds onto a high draft pick beyond the expiration of their rookie contract because of the sunk cost fallacy. Usually it doesn’t even last the duration of their rookie contract...just look at Ealy and Hall.

[Seltzer]

I'm honestly torn on Heinicke.  In my mind, it breaks down like this:

• Pros
  • Panthers were willing to roll with him as our only backup last year coming off an 11 win season and with a QB that typically gets banged up (at least for a few downs) every year due to his physical playing style
  • Playbook changes the least with him due to his mobility
  • Not a cannon, but an adequate arm
• Cons
  • Arguably has the lowest ceiling of any of the QB's on the roster
  • Grier is going to make the roster, so to keep Heinicke means letting Kyle Allen go and hoping we can stash him on the PS (which I doubt will happen)

Ultimately, I think the cons outweigh the pros.  I do think we are going to keep 3 QB's this year, which means it comes down to Heinicke vs. Allen.  Grier and Allen both have starter potential IMO-  Heinicke does not.  That's not to disparage the guy, but other than running the read option better, there is nowhere else where he offers anything better long-term than the other backups.

If Cam goes down, so does our season at this point, but the smarter move is to continue to develop the guys with the higher ceilings and long-term potential.

I do think Heinicke gets significant playing among the other guys in the preseason, and hopefully could net a conditional late round pick.  I do think there is a decent chance he is on a NFL roster this season even if it's not here.