Well, Allen is a rookie who has been getting abused (showed improvement before Raiders game), Stephenson clearly isn't ready, and Lilja always gets raped by Oakland.

So that's 3 positions that will be different next year.

I would also question the fact that against Oakland, when they were beating us inside, we kept running the ball where? You guessed it, inside.

I don't agree at all. CEOs with what you're calling "absolute power" run large organizations all over our country. It's the standard organizational model. IMO, it's a lot better to have one person in charge than it is to expect two to work together without one being able to have the final say. Ideally, the person in charge will be good at accepting input and forming consensus within the leadership of the organization but someone has to make the final decision. It can be the GM or the HC, but someone has to be the final say unless the owner is willing to referee disagreements.

I don't know who it was that said that Carl and Marty were peers, but that wasn't the case. Carl was the boss for most of their time together. Marty was reportedly given greater control over personnel at the end, but it's not clear to me what the arrangement was and it certainly didn't improve the product on the field.

Yeah, that seemed weird to me.

I think you kind of took my statement wrong, or I phrased it a little wrong.


The GM will make the personnel decisions, based on what the coach inputs to him that he wants and what he then thinks is the best. We have a huge disconnect here in that our current GM makes decisions seemingly not caring what the coach wants and what HE along thinks is best.

The NFL is a little different than big business, but you are right in that one guy will make the decision.

:spock:

Meh, I don't know about all of that. In just about every organization ever, there's been a boss and a subordinate. And from a technical perspective, the GM is the boss. Because he's the manager. He's no different than a CEO is the boss of the COO CFO and whatever other divisions there are. If the GM is worth a ****, he'll let the coach coach, just like the CEO lets the CFO and COO run their business.

IMO, it is no different than a CEO. In order to be successful the GM needs to

• Put his coach in a position to succeed (players, contracts, etc)
• Allow him to be a manager (don't meddle like that cocksucking Pioli)
• Hold them accountable for results over what they have control over.
• Work together amicably.

All of which is like any other manager in the country. And there are good managers and shitty managers. Pioli was (you see what I did there, "was" :D) a shitty manager.

I don't think it is wise to force a coach on a GM. Translated to the business world, that's like being a manager over someone you can't fire. That's not good for anybody.

The GM, once the season starts, should really have nothing to do with the gameday, football things. He brings the players in, then lets the coach coach.

Sorry. I misunderstood. I'm OK with giving either of them final say over personnel, it just depends on who they are. If Clark wants a veteran coach (like Cowher), I'm more comfortable with the idea of hiring a GM who will serve the decision-making coach. If he's more inclined to get a first-time coach, I'm more inclined to prefer a GM who makes the decisions with input from the coach.

Yep, spot on there patteu.

We just have a huge void and problem with that right now, but it's about to be fixed.

I'm not suggest your force a coach on the GM.

I'm suggesting the GM and head coach should be peers and work hand-in-hand.

To take your analogy further, Clark Hunt is the CEO. The GM is the CTO and the coach is the COO. The CTO creates the vision and acquires the "technical" pieces to accomplish the organizational vision. The COO carries out the plan and manages the operation. They're peers, independent and interdependent at the same time.

Whoa. That's too reasonable. Get that outta here!

:D

I'm not disagreeing that they do markedly different tasks within the organization, but the fact is the GM hires the coach. I think what you are wanting is a GM who will let the coach coach. To that end I agree 100%. It is critical to the success of the organization that GM lets the coach do his job and not meddle like an obsessive ****.

I don't see any reason to believe Clark will now start hiring coaches to change that dynamic. And frankly, I don't think we want that. Clark isn't a football guy and doesn't immerse himself in the league enough to know the nuances between coaches, scheme, personnel, all that stuff. That'd be like me me picking drapes. I'm most likely to make a horrible decision. I may pick some out that strike some fancy with me, but the probability of them working with the design function of the room, or having any intrinsic functional use is low. I could luck out and make the right choice, but let's be real here. I'm gonna **** that up. Bad.

IMO, you pick a good GM. GM hires a good coach. Both do their jobs and work together. If a GM is incapable of that, he's not a good GM.

I don't know about that it doesn't seem they can pass block very well

I think that has a little more to do with who's taking the snap, than who's giving it.

Albert, Hudson, Asamoah and Winston are all excellent pass blockers.

Stephenson, Allen, and Lilja have not been this year, and weren't Sunday.