I think I'm starting to come around on a theory I've been hearing nationally and on here a little too.
Assuming the Giants don't hire a coach who has final personnel say (de facto GM like Belichick)..
I think maybe a coach should be hired first and his coordinators, one who has a system/scheme and prototypical players who fit that system and scheme.
And then a GM should be brought in who understands the coaching philosophy and can work with the coach and coordinators and bring in the right player mix to succeed or be coached up to succeed in that scheme.
Why does it seem when both positions are vacant that it's the other way round where a GM is hired or people say if the coach was already in place when the GM was hired "well he never had a chance to hire "his guy" as coach"
I think we saw some of it with Reese (since TC was coach before JR was named GM).
Players like Adrien Robinson, Clint Sintim, Jernigan, Beatty, even later to an extent with Eli Apple and the list of later round picks who were flat our awful fits with what the Giants do is lengthy.
Would that be avoided with the hiring going the other way around? Or does it not matter, the two work together regardless and should be on the same page?
GM - bring in as many talented players as you can using every resource you have
HC - sort through the talent and construct the best team possible
I think the head coach is the guy that has to be fluid. If the GM has amassed the talent to rebuild the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers but the coach insists on running the Run and Shoot, the head coach is doing a bad job.
The gameplan has to be tailored to the talent. That is the coach's primary job.
GM - bring in as many talented players as you can using every resource you have
HC - sort through the talent and construct the best team possible
I think the head coach is the guy that has to be fluid. If the GM has amassed the talent to rebuild the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers but the coach insists on running the Run and Shoot, the head coach is doing a bad job.
The gameplan has to be tailored to the talent. That is the coach's primary job.
But if a coach prefers a certain scheme or finds it to be successful, by asking them to "be fluid" isn't that the same thing as drafting Clint Sintim to play in a 4-3?
If I'm a coach and I feel like a 3-4 is the best scheme and my GM keeps drafting tweeners who don't really fit at LB or DL in the system, how am I set up to succeed?
Forcing the square peg in the round hole isn't increasing the odds for success.
if the coach/coordinators say I like zone CB's, tall possession WR's and mauling OL and the GM drafts man CB's, short quick WR's and finesse OL do you think the coach is at fault when their system doesn't run the way they want?
Of course to an extent the coach should be able to adapt, and mix things up, but I would imagine (definitely not claiming to be an expert) coaches have their preference and prototypes they feel increase the odds of success.
You brought up Sintim...was the failure Reese's, or was it Coughlin's staff because they failed to integrate him? Now it might be that Sintim just stunk regardless of the scheme...in which case the failure is Reese's. But if Sintim was a square peg in a round hole, I would fault the scheme for only being able to accommodate a round peg.
the idea of hiring a GM is to have a football professional in charge. A professional who has earned his way to the top, not simply the beneficiary of an estate.
As stated by others, the GM and HC need to be compatible. Unless you let the HC (hired first) pick the GM, you run the risk of having a disconnect.
IF the GM is running the show, he should be the one selecting those around him, and that includes the HC, especially in a case like this where both positions are open.
Hiring the coach first declares to the world that this is completely the Mara show, and I think Mara still wants to pretend it's not.
Not sure who has done it this way, is it common to have both positions vacant concurrently?
Doesn't mean you can't go the other way - I just think it makes less sense.
I bolded part about my point before about players not being fits for coaches schemes.
Canty was the New England Patriots' first-round pick (29th overall) in 1997. A 5-foot-9 cornerback out of Kansas State, he possessed none of the characteristics for which Carroll looked. Canty lasted two seasons with the team, and Googling his name now leads to various results about the Patriots' worst draft picks of all time.
"It was when I first got there, and I hadn’t been very involved in the draft," Carroll said last week at the owners' meetings. "I wasn’t part of the discussions and all that stuff. I’m not blaming... that was my fault for not getting more involved. Because we took a guy, we took a corner that wasn’t very fast, that had short arms, that was about 5-9. That ain’t the kind of guy that I like. It couldn’t be farther and more obvious that that was not representative of the way I coach. I wanted big guys back then. I was coaching that way in college. That was a great indicator of not being connected to it, and he didn’t play very well. It wasn’t his fault. We picked him. But that’s a good indication."
"I just found that was the best way to be the most accurate in acquiring talent and then utilizing that," he said. "I can’t see where there’s a better way to do that. I think that’s the best way to do it because ultimately it comes down to the game and coaching guys and getting them fitted together. And so the coach has to be part of that to do that."
According to Carroll, the first three or four months together with Schneider in 2010 were critical. They basically "lived together" and hammered out their philosophies on every aspect of the organization. The goal was to make sure their visions were aligned and differences ironed out.
Still, there have been times when they disagree. Carroll and Schneider are not robots. While they might share similar philosophies, individual evaluations may differ. The same goes for scouts, assistant coaches and other members of the organization.
Link - ( New Window )
Is this accurate?
Is this accurate?
No, they had a 3-4 in 1980, according to football-reference starting lineup (not going to lie and say my 7 year old self knows that).
Just because they finally fired a GM around here,
I wouldn't expect wholesale philosophical changes...
They take things one step at a time, but it's progress nonetheless for them at least.
A good gm should also hire a coach who fits his philiosophy. Hiring a GM first seems like the right direction to me.
I think that the other way around gives the appearance of the GM being just a figurehead as opposed to a real skilled executive -- and coaches do not always do the right thing for the cap - nor do they have the time or inclination to understand it.
Tom Coughlin - for instance -- wasn't able to control expenses very well when he was essentially coach/GM of the Jags -- it caught up with him
very good point
I would prefer that the two are independent of each other.