Buffalo Boy Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 As I'm reading that Pegulas pushed this change based on specific stats ( third down conversion efficiency) and a distaste for the offenses lack of expensive player utilization, I get the uneasy feeling of Dan Snyder/Jerry Jones type meddling. From my understanding, they played a part in bringing Ryan in, which IMO was a terrible football decision to start. Coupled with the fact that they caused a winning coach to quit ( Marrone) . One could argue that Marrone with a competent OC would be better than Ryan with anyone. For the record, I was happy to see Marrone go. My question is, How hands on are they in coaching and player personnel decisions and is it a good thing if they are? Some others have opined that they need to get a strong football guy to run the whole show and stay out of it. I would favor this approach. From a business stand point, with season ticket sales over the last two seasons, Ryan was a good move. Where do their interested lie? Business or Winning?
BringBackOrton Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 The owners should hire one man who unilaterally acts as GM or President of the team, with a clear vision of HC targets, offensive and defensive schemes congruent with both current and future talent, drafting philosophy, and general idea on how to build a winning team. He then hires an HC, and maybe even a GM (if he doesn't already de facto hold that position.) These hires will be interviewed extensively to ensure that they match the philosophy of the head football guy. Then you target OC's and DC's who are also congruent with the standard philosophy. Then you talk to the players, you explain what you're doing, why you're doing it, and what you expect to see. HC gets 3 years. GM (if not the acting president) gets 3. President gets 5-6. Basically, he gets a single mulligan on his choices. That's the extent of the owner's involvement. Hire a guy with a coherent plan and let him sink or swim.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 As I'm reading that Pegulas pushed this change based on specific stats ( third down conversion efficiency) and a distaste for the offenses lack of expensive player utilization, I get the uneasy feeling of Dan Snyder/Jerry Jones type meddling. From my understanding, they played a part in bringing Ryan in, which IMO was a terrible football decision to start. Coupled with the fact that they caused a winning coach to quit ( Marrone) . One could argue that Marrone with a competent OC would be better than Ryan with anyone. For the record, I was happy to see Marrone go. My question is, How hands on are they in coaching and player personnel decisions and is it a good thing if they are? Some others have opined that they need to get a strong football guy to run the whole show and stay out of it. I would favor this approach. From a business stand point, with season ticket sales over the last two seasons, Ryan was a good move. Where do their interested lie? Business or Winning? I am getting the the uneasy feeling of Ralph Wilson type meddling which is even worse.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 (edited) 3 what years?? I'd disagree with that. GM's usually get at least two if not three coaching hires before someone figures out the issue may really be the GM. Rarely have I seen GM's fired that quickly. How much of Rex being a Pegula move is true, who knows. But I'd think if there is any truth to it, Pegula didn't get where he is today by being dumb, I'd think he'd learn his lesson and not do that again. GM (if not the acting president) gets 3. Edited September 17, 2016 by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch
Marv's Neighbor Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 That depends how successful we are.
Mr. WEO Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 3 what years?? I'd disagree with that. GM's usually get at least two if not three coaching hires before someone figures out the issue may really be the GM. Rarely have I seen GM's fired that quickly. How much of Rex being a Pegula move is true, who knows. But I'd think if there is any truth to it, Pegula didn't get where he is today by being dumb, I'd think he'd learn his lesson and not do that again. Who are the GMs who have survived 3 HC changes?
jr1 Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 you gotta be on top of your biz or you'll be !@#$ed like the people on Bar Rescue
BringBackOrton Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 (edited) 3 what years?? I'd disagree with that. GM's usually get at least two if not three coaching hires before someone figures out the issue may really be the GM. Rarely have I seen GM's fired that quickly. How much of Rex being a Pegula move is true, who knows. But I'd think if there is any truth to it, Pegula didn't get where he is today by being dumb, I'd think he'd learn his lesson and not do that again. It's a simple matter of talent evaluation. "How has the top half of the league done in acquiring talent in the last 3 years? How has our GM done?" If he has been in the top 15, he's good. If not, why keep him around? A GM that cannot acquire talent at the same rate as the league average is detrimental to the team. I see no reason to give an employee another draft if he's shown he can't keep up. Although you do raise a good point. Another thing the top football man should have are criteria that are grounds for firing. If the GM whiffs on 50% or more of his 1st and 2nd round picks, reevaluate. If the DC finishes with a top 20 unit two years in a row, reevaluate. If the OC takes a previously top 12 unit and it drops to 24th or worse after one year, reevaluate. Edited September 17, 2016 by jmc12290
qwksilver Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 How happy are Raider fans that Al's not drafting anymore? Also Cowboy fans hate jerruh as the GM. That should be enough for us Bills fans. Although the Pegs' were unhappy with the obvious issues as were all the fans. They need a President of operations and keep their noses out of the rest of the org.
K-No Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 How involved would anyone here be if they owned the team.
CountryCletus Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 Involved enough to put a winning product on the field and not be too proud to admit he was wrong with a coaching hire
K D Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 How involved would anyone here be if they owned the team. I'd be owner/president/gm/coach and I'd win the super bowl
CommonCents Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 Involved enough to keep his players from kissing mascots of the opposing teams. Involved enough to get the right guys in the places to make the decisions he himself is unable to make. Lastly, involved enough to feel the pulse of the team all the while letting the GM/coach work hand and hand as they are being paid to do.
Recommended Posts