Hammock Parties
02-01-2008, 12:38 AM
Hilarious.
ALL FOR ONE! AND ONE FOR ALL!
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2008/01/31/point_of_order__whats_a_gm_supposed_to_do/
POINT OF ORDER – What's a GM supposed to do?
In recent years we have seen, regretfully, that on critical issues involving the Chiefs there is too little real debate, often simply bumper sticker clichés reflecting common assertions that get passed around.
The subject of general managers and their responsibilities and function is one of those subjects very much in the news today – especially as it pertains to the Chiefs. In this second in a series of free flowing conversations our columnists give what they believe a GM is responsible for, particularly in the case of Carl Peterson’s tenure in Kansas City.
RUFUS DAWES: “Clark Hunt said something interesting the other day during his [Kansas City] media blitz. He inferred that Herm Edwards was one of the most significant change-artists to come along in recent years as Chiefs head coach. He wants to change the direction, which the media quickly picked up on as reason to believe that Carl Peterson had been neutered even though it flies in the face of how Peterson has always approached not only his choice of coaches but how he has worked with them.
“What seems to be lost in all this Peterson-devalued contention is that Peterson hired Edwards and presumably the two men had long discussions during the interview process on what the head coach believed he needed to be successful. The GM’s ultimate responsibility is to give the coach what he needs to win. With Schottenheimer it was free agent defensive backs like James Hasty or Mark Collins, or experienced quarterbacks like Joe Montana. That was the direction. Almost every year from 1993 on the off-season has been punctuated by free agent mania which publicly reached epic proportions here when compared to other less recognized methods available to improve the team.
“With Vermeil it was Trent Green and at some cost [number 1 draft pick], even Vermeil himself at some cost, including the hiring of as many [assistant] coaches he believed he needed. With Edwards it looks to be a different direction. But the media miss the forest for the trees because of their obsession with what Peterson wears or how he talks or does not talk to them. I mean, can anyone in the public even name the Giants GM?”
BOB GRETZ: “A GM-Director of Football should provide his head coach with what the coach wants and needs to be successful. But two things based on whether the GM is also the man in charge of the entire organization: is he the president as well, or just a guy in charge of football? A President-GM needs to work with ownership to establish a foundation for what the franchise stands for, its goals and how they plan to get there. Everyone hired from that point in the corporate flow chart needs to be given those goals and their job designed to achieve them.”
RON BORGES: “A general manager in the modern NFL has many jobs. Someone like Peterson, who also serves as club president and CEO, had more roles to play than Samuel Jackson and very likely that in itself is part of the problem. How many jobs can one man do and do them well?
“Certainly the Chiefs are financially sound and have long found ways to compete despite having one of the least favorable stadium situations in the league and Peterson deserves credit for that. But the primary job of a general manager in the NFL is to provide his coaches with the best talent.”
DAWES: “The reality is that Carl Peterson may well be the last of his kind: the president/GM. That model is being discontinued yearly, or so it seems. It’s interesting, and largely gone unnoticed to all but a few insiders, but Bill Kuharich, the Chiefs personnel VP was, other than Peterson, the last man in the league to hold this dual role. He was president/GM in New Orleans, which is kind of ironic.”
JONATHAN RAND: “The general manager, obviously, is responsible for player acquisition and hiring coaches, so you’d have to say Carl Peterson did a better job in the ‘90s than since then. His last two head coaches had success in their previous jobs and Dick Vermeil won a Super Bowl, so I don’t think you can criticize either hiring. He’s probably most open to criticism for the structure of the Chiefs’ drafting during the Vermeil era. The Chiefs obviously missed on too many defensive players in both the draft and free agency during those years. Too many position coaches seemed to have input in these decisions and missed the bull’s-eye.
“I also think people don’t realize how many balls a GM must juggle in the current NFL – player acquisitions, contract negotiations, marketing, finances, league business, etc. I noticed the Falcons just hired a new GM and the old one, Rich McKay, is going to remain to handle a lot of these other responsibilities. A GM is, more and more, become a CEO which, of course, is what Carl’s title is.”
GRETZ: “Quite simply, more coaches get fired than general managers and the Chiefs are a good example. In 48 years the team has had four general managers and seven head coaches that were fired. If the organization has established a plan, then the GM and coach have been hired to implement that plan. Thus, the GM needs to provide the coach with the tools – players, coaches, facilities – to fulfill that plan. A team’s GM should always be from the personnel side of the business, because that’s the lifeline for any football team: the talent and where it comes from.”
EILEEN WEIR: “It might have been a little different when Peterson first came to town. Not only were Carl and Marty rebuilding the team but the image of the entire franchise.
“Certainly, Carl has been abundantly clear about his role now, not that anyone in this town believes him. He hires the guy [head coach] and lets him go. Carl Peterson has stated unwaveringly through the last two decades that he empowers all of his employees to do their jobs.
“He recruits and retains the best and allows them to operate in their own ways with his support. He has always allowed the head coach to determine the direction of the team from acquiring players and assistant coaches to game planning and organizing practice, training camp, media interviews, press conferences, etc.
“People want to tag him as meddlesome when he is not. I know from working for him that he lets people be pretty autonomous. When he gets involved, sometimes it’s annoying, but it’s infrequent, no different than it would be in any successful business, especially one that has a high profile boss.”
DAWES: “Frankly, I doubt any GM, president, whoever, suffers from as much exposure in his town as Peterson does in this one. It’s gotten to the point that if Carl Peterson didn’t exist it would be necessary for the local media to invent him. Voltaire didn’t say it, but his original formulation holds some truth here.
“Mind you, there can be no shrinking violets in this business. GMs are on the scene to be bludgeoned, accused of misdeeds and foul-ops and whatever else the media wants to throw at them. Every word they utter is subject to interpretation and like anyone who holds political office they have to be careful so as not to be misinterpreted. If that plays too hard for them, they shouldn’t take the job or look to take leave before the criticism really grows ugly.
“We’re in the midst of another one of those periods of time when Peterson’s long-time critics feel energized and believe they can discredit him or show that his authority has been weakened. Swoons like this, like all hysterias, obliterate thought. He’s got two years left on a contract he claimed publicly some time ago would be his last. It’s likely sometime before that a creatively-challenged headline writer will come up with a silly pop culture title like, ‘How Peterson Got His Groove Back,’ or something equally foolish and the entire cycle will start anew.”
ALL FOR ONE! AND ONE FOR ALL!
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2008/01/31/point_of_order__whats_a_gm_supposed_to_do/
POINT OF ORDER – What's a GM supposed to do?
In recent years we have seen, regretfully, that on critical issues involving the Chiefs there is too little real debate, often simply bumper sticker clichés reflecting common assertions that get passed around.
The subject of general managers and their responsibilities and function is one of those subjects very much in the news today – especially as it pertains to the Chiefs. In this second in a series of free flowing conversations our columnists give what they believe a GM is responsible for, particularly in the case of Carl Peterson’s tenure in Kansas City.
RUFUS DAWES: “Clark Hunt said something interesting the other day during his [Kansas City] media blitz. He inferred that Herm Edwards was one of the most significant change-artists to come along in recent years as Chiefs head coach. He wants to change the direction, which the media quickly picked up on as reason to believe that Carl Peterson had been neutered even though it flies in the face of how Peterson has always approached not only his choice of coaches but how he has worked with them.
“What seems to be lost in all this Peterson-devalued contention is that Peterson hired Edwards and presumably the two men had long discussions during the interview process on what the head coach believed he needed to be successful. The GM’s ultimate responsibility is to give the coach what he needs to win. With Schottenheimer it was free agent defensive backs like James Hasty or Mark Collins, or experienced quarterbacks like Joe Montana. That was the direction. Almost every year from 1993 on the off-season has been punctuated by free agent mania which publicly reached epic proportions here when compared to other less recognized methods available to improve the team.
“With Vermeil it was Trent Green and at some cost [number 1 draft pick], even Vermeil himself at some cost, including the hiring of as many [assistant] coaches he believed he needed. With Edwards it looks to be a different direction. But the media miss the forest for the trees because of their obsession with what Peterson wears or how he talks or does not talk to them. I mean, can anyone in the public even name the Giants GM?”
BOB GRETZ: “A GM-Director of Football should provide his head coach with what the coach wants and needs to be successful. But two things based on whether the GM is also the man in charge of the entire organization: is he the president as well, or just a guy in charge of football? A President-GM needs to work with ownership to establish a foundation for what the franchise stands for, its goals and how they plan to get there. Everyone hired from that point in the corporate flow chart needs to be given those goals and their job designed to achieve them.”
RON BORGES: “A general manager in the modern NFL has many jobs. Someone like Peterson, who also serves as club president and CEO, had more roles to play than Samuel Jackson and very likely that in itself is part of the problem. How many jobs can one man do and do them well?
“Certainly the Chiefs are financially sound and have long found ways to compete despite having one of the least favorable stadium situations in the league and Peterson deserves credit for that. But the primary job of a general manager in the NFL is to provide his coaches with the best talent.”
DAWES: “The reality is that Carl Peterson may well be the last of his kind: the president/GM. That model is being discontinued yearly, or so it seems. It’s interesting, and largely gone unnoticed to all but a few insiders, but Bill Kuharich, the Chiefs personnel VP was, other than Peterson, the last man in the league to hold this dual role. He was president/GM in New Orleans, which is kind of ironic.”
JONATHAN RAND: “The general manager, obviously, is responsible for player acquisition and hiring coaches, so you’d have to say Carl Peterson did a better job in the ‘90s than since then. His last two head coaches had success in their previous jobs and Dick Vermeil won a Super Bowl, so I don’t think you can criticize either hiring. He’s probably most open to criticism for the structure of the Chiefs’ drafting during the Vermeil era. The Chiefs obviously missed on too many defensive players in both the draft and free agency during those years. Too many position coaches seemed to have input in these decisions and missed the bull’s-eye.
“I also think people don’t realize how many balls a GM must juggle in the current NFL – player acquisitions, contract negotiations, marketing, finances, league business, etc. I noticed the Falcons just hired a new GM and the old one, Rich McKay, is going to remain to handle a lot of these other responsibilities. A GM is, more and more, become a CEO which, of course, is what Carl’s title is.”
GRETZ: “Quite simply, more coaches get fired than general managers and the Chiefs are a good example. In 48 years the team has had four general managers and seven head coaches that were fired. If the organization has established a plan, then the GM and coach have been hired to implement that plan. Thus, the GM needs to provide the coach with the tools – players, coaches, facilities – to fulfill that plan. A team’s GM should always be from the personnel side of the business, because that’s the lifeline for any football team: the talent and where it comes from.”
EILEEN WEIR: “It might have been a little different when Peterson first came to town. Not only were Carl and Marty rebuilding the team but the image of the entire franchise.
“Certainly, Carl has been abundantly clear about his role now, not that anyone in this town believes him. He hires the guy [head coach] and lets him go. Carl Peterson has stated unwaveringly through the last two decades that he empowers all of his employees to do their jobs.
“He recruits and retains the best and allows them to operate in their own ways with his support. He has always allowed the head coach to determine the direction of the team from acquiring players and assistant coaches to game planning and organizing practice, training camp, media interviews, press conferences, etc.
“People want to tag him as meddlesome when he is not. I know from working for him that he lets people be pretty autonomous. When he gets involved, sometimes it’s annoying, but it’s infrequent, no different than it would be in any successful business, especially one that has a high profile boss.”
DAWES: “Frankly, I doubt any GM, president, whoever, suffers from as much exposure in his town as Peterson does in this one. It’s gotten to the point that if Carl Peterson didn’t exist it would be necessary for the local media to invent him. Voltaire didn’t say it, but his original formulation holds some truth here.
“Mind you, there can be no shrinking violets in this business. GMs are on the scene to be bludgeoned, accused of misdeeds and foul-ops and whatever else the media wants to throw at them. Every word they utter is subject to interpretation and like anyone who holds political office they have to be careful so as not to be misinterpreted. If that plays too hard for them, they shouldn’t take the job or look to take leave before the criticism really grows ugly.
“We’re in the midst of another one of those periods of time when Peterson’s long-time critics feel energized and believe they can discredit him or show that his authority has been weakened. Swoons like this, like all hysterias, obliterate thought. He’s got two years left on a contract he claimed publicly some time ago would be his last. It’s likely sometime before that a creatively-challenged headline writer will come up with a silly pop culture title like, ‘How Peterson Got His Groove Back,’ or something equally foolish and the entire cycle will start anew.”