Coach Versus GM - which is more important?

[Rain Man]

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?

[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.

[MikeMaslowski]

my wife has big tits.

[suds79]

It's hard to say. So important to have both.

Guess an average coach would be washed out in a few years so I guess I'll take the really good GM.

[MikeMaslowski]

oops...sorry

[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.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Barry Switzer, Brian Billick, George Seifert all won Super Bowls.

[milkman]

my wife has big tits.

This post is worthless without pics.

[MikeMaslowski]

This post is worthless without pics.
.

[FloridaMan88]

You would logically assume that a good GM would not hire a crappy head coach, so I'm going with a good GM being more important

[Rain Man]

.

That's a great cat tree.

[StcChief]

.nice. looks like you have cats.......based on cat towers.

but she looks like a tiger in the sack. :thumb:

[MikeMaslowski]

That's a great cat tree.

haha.......we have two cats, not my idea......

[milkman]

.

Ah... I was young once.

She looks about my daughter's age.

[Ultra Peanut]

Barry Switzer, Brian Billick, George Seifert all won Super Bowls.--------------------
end of thread
--------------------

[blueballs]

.

that's a strange way to dress for a wake

[Buehler445]

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]

that's a strange way to dress for a wake

I must be slow.

[lazepoo]

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]

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

[milkman]

I must be slow.

No, you just don't speak blueballish.

[MikeMaslowski]

No, you just don't speak blueballish.

My balls are always fleshy pink....

[eazyb81]

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

[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.

[milkman]

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 fucking 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]

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]

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


no

[lazepoo]

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]

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]

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.

[WilliamTheIrish]

I might have said differently 25 years ago. But today, in this NFL, give me a great GM and he'll find a great coach.

[DJ's left nut]

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.

You don't win a SB with average coaching either.

You don't win a SB with either of those combinations.

You can, however, compete year in/year out with a great coach and an average GM, you can't do that with the inverse.

[DJ's left nut]

I might have said differently 25 years ago. But today, in this NFL, give me a great GM and he'll find a great coach.

Again, ignores the loophole.

The GM in our poll has a mediocre coach, period. Otherwise it's a 'no shit' answer'.

It's cheating, much like wishing for more wishes when the genie pops out of the bottle. It defeats the exercise altogether.

[DaWolf]

Well, good GM and bad HC basically give you the Chargers.

However, a head coach is not going to win without talent, so that's a moot point. The guy who brings in the talent is always more important. Even Barry Switzer can win with good talent. It's just going to fall apart a lot quicker...

[milkman]

Again, ignores the loophole.

The GM in our poll has a mediocre coach, period. Otherwise it's a 'no shit' answer'.

It's cheating, much like wishing for more wishes when the genie pops out of the bottle. It defeats the exercise altogether.

There is no loophole.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

But in the NFL, an average GM can bring in good talent.

Again: Parity rules. With the draft rules and salary cap, there's always talent to be had. An average GM can find that talent.

I think Chiefs fans are so traumitized by Carl that they think you either have a great GM or a shitty one. Remember, your average team, in terms of talent, is 15th in the league. That's not a large leap that coaching has to make to get them into 8th or so in record and suddenly you have a playoff team.

I think you really have to recognize what this question is asking you to explore to see where I'm coming from here.

[DJ's left nut]

There is no loophole.

Okay, then the pole is stupid, wish for more wishes.

Hell, Rainman just admitted he hadn't explored it from that perspective, so it's clear it wasn't an area he was thinking about when he made the poll and asked the question. It appears to me that its absolutely a loophole and his response affirms it.

In either event, assume it is a loophole and suddenly the question is worth asking

[WilliamTheIrish]

Again, ignores the loophole.

The GM in our poll has a mediocre coach, period. Otherwise it's a 'no shit' answer'.

It's cheating, much like wishing for more wishes when the genie pops out of the bottle. It defeats the exercise altogether.

Hey, I'm an enigma. A conundrum. A cheater.

[Buehler445]

Again, ignores the loophole.

The GM in our poll has a mediocre coach, period. Otherwise it's a 'no shit' answer'.

It's cheating, much like wishing for more wishes when the genie pops out of the bottle. It defeats the exercise altogether.

If a good GM doesn't bring in a good coach, he is not a good GM.

[milkman]

Okay, then the pole is stupid, wish for more wishes.

Hell, Rainman just admitted he hadn't explored it from that perspective, so it's clear it wasn't an area he was thinking about when he made the poll and asked the question. It appears to me that its absolutely a loophole and his response affirms it.

In either event, assume it is a loophole and suddenly the question is worth asking

And at the same time he didn't specify that it was a poll that was for a single year.

I answered the question based on the assumption that it was long term.

If he specified for one year, I wouldn't have answered because it then is a stupid question not worth answering.

[Bwana]

It all starts with a good GM.

[milkman]

I don't think Dimitroff made any spectacular decisions.

He..........drafted the consensus best QB in the draft. This takes a brilliant personnel mind to manage? I don't believe it does.

And further, to this point, if that were true, then Parcells would have drafted Ryan.

Pennington has played well, but he's, what?, 35 years old?

Parcells had the opportunity to take the best QB in the class, and passed.

[DJ's left nut]

And I don't know that Parcells made the wrong decision. Pennington has 3-5 years left (he's 32) as a strong QB, that's an eternity in the NFL. He made an extremely defensible decision, especially when they still want to know what they have in Beck and LT is damn near as important as QB.

[Extra Point]

It's a trap question. It assumes that Herm is around next year, and it takes a good GM a year to kick Herm under the bus.

[milkman]

And I don't know that Parcells made the wrong decision. Pennington has 3-5 years left (he's 32) as a strong QB, that's an eternity in the NFL. He made an extremely defensible decision, especially when they still want to know what they have in Beck and LT is damn near as important as QB.

I would disagree strongly.

Pennington has had injury issues throughout his career and has marginal arm strength at best.

As I've said elsewhere, if you have the chance to draft a potential future franchise QB, you take him.

[greg63]

I think that you should be both the head coach and the GM Rain Man! :D

[el borracho]

I'd rather have a Very Good GM and Mediocre head coach.
I'd rather have a Very Good head coach and Mediocre GM.

Hmmm, the first option is Turner coaching AJ's Chargers and the second option is Marty coaching Peterson's Chiefs. If I absolutely had to choose, I would take the head coach.

[el borracho]

I would disagree strongly.

Pennington has had injury issues throughout his career and has marginal arm strength at best.

As I've said elsewhere, if you have the chance to draft a potential future franchise QB, you take him.

Miami spent a high 2nd on Beck the year before. Hi draft position mandates what they do. They probably want to groom him (Beck) a bit and then see if he's any good before spending the number 1 overall pick on a QB. Parcells spent a good deal of time with Romo (undrafted, IIRC) before letting him start- I imagine Beck will get at least that.