Scott Fitterer.... let's grade his drafts and FA signings

[TheMaulClaw]

Perryman was a great signing.  He had a great year that year for another team. It was a bad cut and we know where that came from.

[SmokinwithWilly]

1 minute ago, KSpan said:

Perhaps this is just me hoping, but I'd like to think that he saw the failure that Rhule was/would be and felt he could leverage that into a job that wouldn't be working with Rhule for long and that he also wouldn't have to compete for in a conventional manner. He pretty quickly got more power last season and is now the full GM, and it wasn't a difficult path to identify.

That's been my feeling all along. It's one of 32 jobs in the NFL and you never know if you're going to get another shot. At last year's season ending presser, I thought it pretty obvious through his tone and body language, he expected Rhule to be fired. Fitts doesn't strike me as a stupid man and I don't think he ever bought into the bullshit that is Matt Rhule's existence. 

Whether or not he is a good GM remains to be seen, but you never know if you never get a shot. 

[mrcompletely11]

8 minutes ago, t96 said:

not if it's an elite player at one of the most important positions (pass rusher, LT, QB)

Well then if that's the case hurney was the tits as GM

[TheMaulClaw]

I don't mind Fitt but there are a few things that irk me.  What bothers me about Fitt is that he has a hard time knowing when the team is good or not.  If we look at the Gilmore trade last year, he obviously thought we were in position to make the playoffs, but the team was not as good as he thought.  We lost an asset and draft position due to that trade. 

CMC is a little debatable, you could make an argument that the trade was executed a bit too early.  I mean you have to think we're in the playoffs with CMC this year, and it would be really nice to have him next season. 

I understand that we need to address the QB position and maybe we roll some of those assets over into trading up for a QB. However,  the draft compensation to move up so high would be brutal.  If the pick is a bust then we are toast.  Would you take a rookie qb and Foreman over Derek Carr, CMC, Foreman, and drafting another WR or stud TE?  This is assuming that the Raiders would retain some of the cap hit.

I'd take the latter, because we could retain future 1st round picks.

[t96]

10 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Well then if that's the case hurney was the tits as GM

lol what? He was here like 15 years and had 3 drafts where he grabbed an elite player at one of those positions. He still sucked, and only reason we got Cam was because of how bad we were in 2010 not because Hurney was some great GM. But yes that 2011 draft which was a disaster outside of round 1 was still an incredibly successful draft for the team just by getting Cam. 

[KSpan]

16 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

I don't mind Fitt but there are a few things that irk me.  What bothers me about Fitt is that he has a hard time knowing when the team is good or not.  If we look at the Gilmore trade last year, he obviously thought we were in position to make the playoffs, but the team was not as good as he thought.  We lost an asset and draft position due to that trade. 

CMC is a little debatable, you could make an argument that the trade was executed a bit too early.  I mean you have to think we're in the playoffs with CMC this year, and it would be really nice to have him next season. 

I understand that we need to address the QB position and maybe we roll some of those assets over into trading up for a QB. However,  the draft compensation to move up so high would be brutal.  If the pick is a bust then we are toast.  Would you take a rookie qb and Foreman over Derek Carr, CMC, Foreman, and drafting another WR or stud TE?  This is assuming that the Raiders would retain some of the cap hit.

I'd take the latter, because we could retain future 1st round picks.

That's where the split of responsibility comes in. If Rhule had the control it's claimed he did, most Fitterer decisions have to be taken with at least a grain of salt; in the Gilmore example, perhpas it was Rhule who pushed for the addition.

Now I'm not saying by any means that all good was Fitterer and none of the bad, just saying that it was a very unusual dynamic that greatly clouds the ability to judge.

Edited February 2, 2023 by KSpan

[L-TownCat]

3 hours ago, CashNewton22 said:

This thread is a bit premature.

Best answer.

 

The official narrative is that Rhule had final say on everything all the way down the line to the social media team.  

Im sure there was collaboration but “you know, at the end of the day, ultimately, you know” Rhule had to approve.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, L-TownCat said:

Best answer.

The official narrative is that Rhule had final say on everything all the way down the line to the social media team.  

Im sure there was collaboration but “you know, at the end of the day, ultimately, you know” Rhule had to approve.

Person and others have reported that behind the scenes, If someone didn't agree to what Rhule wanted he'd basically badger them until they relented.

He could have just overruled them but doing it this way he got to say "See? They agree with me".

It's a very common trait of horrible, overbearing managers everywhere.

[DennisM1]

The fact he still has job is unreal real marty gurney vibes rn

[AU-panther]

The problem with these questions is that none of know for sure who is really making the decision.  Maybe Reddick was Rhule's idea.  Maybe Fitt was actually telling Rhule that Darnold was a bad idea.  I doubt any of us really know.

I do know this though.  Since Rhule first showed up, and even after he left with Fitt in charge we have consistently thought short term.  Whether its Bridgewater, Darnold, not trading Burns, not playing the comp pick game, trading for Gilmore, and the list goes on.  Being self aware might be one of the most important qualities any decision maker can have.  

In Fitts defense, so far he has shown two qualities that I really do like.  He has shown a willingness to trade down, which over time tends to be a smart play historically speaking.  Also, he seems to value positional value, which is something our last regime didn't' seem too as much.  Drafting is an inexact science.  Even the best miss more than they hit, but if your process is sound, there is a good chance you will be better than most.

 

[SmokinwithWilly]

1 hour ago, TheMaulClaw said:

I don't mind Fitt but there are a few things that irk me.  What bothers me about Fitt is that he has a hard time knowing when the team is good or not.  If we look at the Gilmore trade last year, he obviously thought we were in position to make the playoffs, but the team was not as good as he thought.  We lost an asset and draft position due to that trade. 

CMC is a little debatable, you could make an argument that the trade was executed a bit too early.  I mean you have to think we're in the playoffs with CMC this year, and it would be really nice to have him next season. 

I understand that we need to address the QB position and maybe we roll some of those assets over into trading up for a QB. However,  the draft compensation to move up so high would be brutal.  If the pick is a bust then we are toast.  Would you take a rookie qb and Foreman over Derek Carr, CMC, Foreman, and drafting another WR or stud TE?  This is assuming that the Raiders would retain some of the cap hit.

I'd take the latter, because we could retain future 1st round picks.

I'm not so sure Gilmore was about making a playoff run vs teaching the young CB room things that coaches just can't. I remember listening to an interview with him talking about how there's things he shows the other guys regarding body language, hand movement, eyes, shifts in body weight, anticipating breaks etc. during a play. He was saying coaches can tell you about it, but there's things that you don't see unless you're doing it with some of these receivers. The way he spoke led me to believe that might have been part of the reason he was here. Having a player of his caliber showing them these little things would be worth it if he could take 2-3 years off their development would easily be worth a 6th rd pick. 

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

This is a case where I'd say their backgrounds help define their roles.

Back in Seattle, Fitterer and former Panther scout Trent Kirchner were co-directors of player personnel. Kirchner handled the pro personnel side while Fitterer concentrated on the draft. It's a similar arrangement to what the Saints had previously with Jeff Ireland and Terry Fontenot, though Ireland and Fontenot had actual Assistant GM titles.

Now, Fitterer is the guy in charge, but he would tell you that he, Morgan and now Reich are going to be heavily collaborative in their approach.

I mean, you can gyrate and justify in any manner you choose but the boss takes the fall for the people that work for him. So unless Fitterer is firing these guys if this goes south, it's going to be Scott Fitterer that takes the fall.

Furthermore, EVERY FRONT OFFICE IS COLLABORATIVE. None of this happens in a vacuum, dude.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

I mean, you can gyrate and justify in any manner you choose but the boss takes the fall for the people that work for him. So unless Fitterer is firing these guys if this goes south, it's going to be Scott Fitterer that takes the fall.

Where did I say he wouldn't?

(I'm not really sure what you're arguing against)

[Shotgun]

Rhule had full control so he gets credit for everything that happened (good or bad) while he was here. Fitts gets credit for everything that happened after Rhule got the boot.