Chiefs Coach Versus GM - which is more important? - Page 2

**Rain Man** · 12-21-2008, 07:30 PM

Let's assume that we can avoid hiring two duds, but that we also won't get two Einsteins.

If one of these two hires is "very good" and the other is "mediocre", which would you rather have as the "very good" one?

blueballs · 12-21-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeMaslowski

.

that's a strange way to dress for a wake

**Buehler445** · 12-21-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

The GM.

A very good GM would have the wherewithal to fire a mediocre coach.

A very good coach is saddled with a mediocre GM.

There is no arguement for this. A good GM will CHOOSE a good coach.

MikeMaslowski · 12-21-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueballs

that's a strange way to dress for a wake

I must be slow.

lazepoo · 12-21-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Ah. Good point. I said coach, but I was thinking more tactically instead of strategically.

In any given year, I'd rather have the good coach, but I guess in the big picture you'd rather have a GM who can identify and counsel out a mediocre coach. I stand corrected.

Ditto.

**Tribal Warfare** · 12-21-2008, 08:00 PM

A good GM will get a good coach it's relative to their success

milkman · 12-21-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeMaslowski

I must be slow.

No, you just don't speak blueballish.

MikeMaslowski · 12-21-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

No, you just don't speak blueballish.

My balls are always fleshy pink....

eazyb81 · 12-21-2008, 08:01 PM

GM. Easily. No brainer for me. This league is all about who has the most talent.

DJ's left nut · 12-21-2008, 08:09 PM

Coach.

We're not talking "Good GM and mediocre coach" v. "good coach and BAD GM". The good coach gets an average GM, so it's not like he'll have bottom of the barrel talent to work with.

A good coach can do a whole lot with average talent, especially when the league is so centered on parity. I see the Panthers, Titans, Bucs, Saints and Falcons as teams off the top of my head that have great coaches but merely average front offices. I can think of very few amazing personnel decisions these teams have made.

I think the Texans are a good example of a team that had a great GM (in hindsight) but a lousy head coach. Look at some of the things that Casserly did, he really did a good job of pulling talent together but that team was never very good, in large part because itw as poorly coached. Now that they have a decent HC, they're really looking like they're on the way.

Gimme a great HC, a guy that has the brains to build a scheme around his players and make them look better than they are. Someone that can make the team something more than the sum of its parts.

milkman · 12-21-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Coach.

We're not talking "Good GM and mediocre coach" v. "good coach and BAD GM". The good coach gets an average GM, so it's not like he'll have bottom of the barrel talent to work with.

A good coach can do a whole lot with average talent, especially when the league is so centered on parity. I see the Panthers, Titans, Bucs, Saints and Falcons as teams off the top of my head that have great coaches but merely average front offices. I can think of very few amazing personnel decisions these teams have made.

I think the Texans are a good example of a team that had a great GM (in hindsight) but a lousy head coach. Look at some of the things that Casserly did, he really did a good job of pulling talent together but that team was never very good, in large part because itw as poorly coached. Now that they have a decent HC, they're really looking like they're on the way.

Gimme a great HC, a guy that has the brains to build a scheme around his players and make them look better than they are. Someone that can make the team something more than the sum of its parts.

I'm sorry, but you're ****ing high.

The Falcons brought in Dimtroff and he made all the right moves in the offseason to get more talent on that team.

Marty Hurney has done a great job of assembling talent in Carolina.

The Bucs and Saints and Texans are just at different levels of mediocrity.

DJ's left nut · 12-21-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I'm sorry, but you're ****ing high.

The Falcons brought in Dimtroff and he made all the right moves in the offseason to get more talent on that team.

Marty Hurney has done a great job of assembling talent in Carolina.

The Bucs and Saints and Texans are just at different levels of mediocrity.

I don't think Dimitroff made any spectacular decisions.

He signed the best FA running back available and drafted the consensus best QB in the draft when it was obvious he QB was destined for prison stripes. This takes a brilliant personnel mind to manage? I don't believe it does.

Again, we're talking moves I think an average GM makes. A stupid GM doesn't get those guys (I'm looking at you Matt Millen), but an average one does.

Carolina's made some good decisions, but they also did things like give Kris Jenkins away. He's been a solid GM, but I wouldn't say he's been spectacular.

What do you consider the Giants? Great GM or great coach? I think their GM has been pretty average. They keep plugging in random DE's and their defense still keeps getting pressure, isn't that more likely to be coaching that talent? Eli Manning is looking pretty damn human without Burress around, and he gave up Rivers and Merriman to pick that guy up. Was that a good trade? I think the Giants have been average from a personnel standpoint but fantastic from a coaching standpoint. Do the Giants really have 3 great RBs or do they have a scheme well suited to suit those talents? I think it's the latter. Again based on the relatively interchangeable success that Ward, Bradshaw and Jacobs have all had.

The 'good GM firing a bad coach' thing is a loophole, I think the OP meant those were your options (i.e. the GM would always have a mediocre HC, these are your options). If you remove that loophole, a mediocre coach can sabatoge, stall, or improperly use good talent. The GM can't do anything to fix that product on the field. It's a weakness that is nearly impossible to address, whereas a great coach can cover for the shortcomings of a mediocre GM.

MikeMaslowski · 12-21-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

a great coach can cover for the shortcomings of a mediocre GM.

no

lazepoo · 12-21-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Coach.

We're not talking "Good GM and mediocre coach" v. "good coach and BAD GM". The good coach gets an average GM, so it's not like he'll have bottom of the barrel talent to work with.

A good coach can do a whole lot with average talent, especially when the league is so centered on parity. I see the Panthers, Titans, Bucs, Saints and Falcons as teams off the top of my head that have great coaches but merely average front offices. I can think of very few amazing personnel decisions these teams have made.

I think the Texans are a good example of a team that had a great GM (in hindsight) but a lousy head coach. Look at some of the things that Casserly did, he really did a good job of pulling talent together but that team was never very good, in large part because itw as poorly coached. Now that they have a decent HC, they're really looking like they're on the way.

Gimme a great HC, a guy that has the brains to build a scheme around his players and make them look better than they are. Someone that can make the team something more than the sum of its parts.

I can see your argument, but the Texans just lost convincingly to Tom Cable's Raiders.

chief52 · 12-21-2008, 08:31 PM

The bottom line is you can not have a mediocre person in either position. Those are the two most important positions in the organization. You need great people there.

You also need them to have a great working relationship. Ideally, they will agree on what type of player they are both looking for. The coach is free to give all his energy to coaching knowing that the GM is taking care of getting him the players he needs. That is the recipe for success.

milkman · 12-21-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I don't think Dimitroff made any spectacular decisions.

He signed the best FA running back available and drafted the consensus best QB in the draft when it was obvious he QB was destined for prison stripes. This takes a brilliant personnel mind to manage? I don't believe it does.

Again, we're talking moves I think an average GM makes. A stupid GM doesn't get those guys (I'm looking at you Matt Millen), but an average one does.

Carolina's made some good decisions, but they also did things like give Kris Jenkins away. He's been a solid GM, but I wouldn't say he's been spectacular.

What do you consider the Giants? Great GM or great coach? I think their GM has been pretty average. They keep plugging in random DE's and their defense still keeps getting pressure, isn't that more likely to be coaching that talent? Eli Manning is looking pretty damn human without Burress around, and he gave up Rivers and Merriman to pick that guy up. Was that a good trade? I think the Giants have been average from a personnel standpoint but fantastic from a coaching standpoint.

The 'good GM firing a bad coach' thing is a loophole, I think the OP meant those were your options (i.e. the GM would always have a mediocre HC, these are your options). If you remove that loophole, a mediocre coach can sabatoge, stall, or improperly use good talent. The GM can't do anything to fix that product on the field. It's a weakness that is nearly impossible to address, whereas a great coach can cover for the shortcomings of a mediocre GM.

Dimitroff also trade up in the draft to get Sam Baker, and drafted Curtis Lofton.
He also is the guy that brought in Mike Smith.

And I'm sorry, you don't win a SB with average personnel.

You have to have talent to win a Chapionship.

Have they had good coaching to bring out the best of that talent?
Yes.

But they are talented players brought in by the GM, including Plaxico Burris.

View Poll Results: If only one of these will be "very good", which would you prefer?
I'd rather have a Very Good GM and Mediocre head coach.	15	41.67%
I'd rather have a Very Good head coach and Mediocre GM.	12	33.33%
I plan to complain either way.	8	22.22%
It's none of my business.	1	2.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

12-21-2008, 07:30 PM
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $2818491 VARSITY	Coach Versus GM - which is more important? Let's assume that we can avoid hiring two duds, but that we also won't get two Einsteins. If one of these two hires is "very good" and the other is "mediocre", which would you rather have as the "very good" one?
Posts: 141,835

12-21-2008, 08:00 PM	#20
Tribal Warfare The Boom Boom Room Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Far Beyond Comprehension Casino cash: $412813	A good GM will get a good coach it's relative to their success __________________
Posts: 42,198

12-21-2008, 08:01 PM	#23
eazyb81 The Illuminati Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the road less traveled Casino cash: $10004900	GM. Easily. No brainer for me. This league is all about who has the most talent.
Posts: 12,033

12-21-2008, 08:09 PM	#24
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $2509099	Coach. We're not talking "Good GM and mediocre coach" v. "good coach and BAD GM". The good coach gets an average GM, so it's not like he'll have bottom of the barrel talent to work with. A good coach can do a whole lot with average talent, especially when the league is so centered on parity. I see the Panthers, Titans, Bucs, Saints and Falcons as teams off the top of my head that have great coaches but merely average front offices. I can think of very few amazing personnel decisions these teams have made. I think the Texans are a good example of a team that had a great GM (in hindsight) but a lousy head coach. Look at some of the things that Casserly did, he really did a good job of pulling talent together but that team was never very good, in large part because itw as poorly coached. Now that they have a decent HC, they're really looking like they're on the way. Gimme a great HC, a guy that has the brains to build a scheme around his players and make them look better than they are. Someone that can make the team something more than the sum of its parts.
Posts: 60,938

12-21-2008, 08:31 PM	#29
chief52 Veteran Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NoCal Casino cash: $9835260	The bottom line is you can not have a mediocre person in either position. Those are the two most important positions in the organization. You need great people there. You also need them to have a great working relationship. Ideally, they will agree on what type of player they are both looking for. The coach is free to give all his energy to coaching knowing that the GM is taking care of getting him the players he needs. That is the recipe for success.
Posts: 3,123