Jump to content

Luke Kuechly Photos

- - - - -

Are the Panthers attractive to a GM prospect?

Jan 06 2013 08:11 AM Zod Carolina Panthers
If I am a high level executive looking at prospective employers, no matter the industry, I am first going to look at the task at hand. What will my responsibilities be, what will I need to fix or improve. Will I be given the support from the owner or board to fix those issues? Or am I being set up to fail?

Surely these are the same things any GM will be asking.

When I see the Panthers, I see a team with a couple extremely talented young players, but also a good number of cap heavy older non producers. I also see ownership that isn't exactly eager to aggressively seek out free agents to fill holes unless left no other option.

So, I would line up the pros and cons...

Pros
An owner that is loyal. Previous GM had longevity through losing seasons.
2 potential young all pro players at key positions, QB and MLB
3rd year coach with system in place, not starting over
Team seemed to rally late in the year, being 6-2

Cons
A complete mess of a cap
Major cuts needed right away to long term vets, leadership and chemistry will take a hit
Ownership is not exactly eager to sign free agents or trades to fill holes unless last resort
3rd year coach who can't seem to win games against quality teams
An overall tradition of losing.

The way I see it, the Carolina GM job isn't extremely attractive, but it isn't terrible either. It's somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Top notch GM candidates will have better opportunities and take them. Secondary prospects will see the Panthers as an opportunity to impress.

Beane being a secondary prospect and already in house gives him the edge. See loyalty above. All things point to him being our guy.

Add Comment

100 Comments

:: before

Photo
CardiacCats
Jan 06 2013 12:21 PM
we have Cam so yes

"Woddy Johnson brought in The Golden Calf of Bristol.. lol"
How do you know this wasn't the Mike Tannebaum move that got him fired?


because playing devil's advocate doesn't disprove the owner had a major say in bringing in a joke for ticket sales...
Reports out of New York are that Woody Johnson kept Rex Ryan not because of his ability to win, but because he likes Ryan's bravado, the way he talks to the press, etc.

This is the same owner who said a while back that he'd rather see the presidential election go the way he wanted it to than to see his team win the Super Bowl.

What Panther fans believe Jerry Richardson to be, Woody Johnson actually is.

and how successful has that fanchise been?again the owner should have some say, but so should the GM.


Well, many of the recent Superbowl champs have had GMs who didn't hire the HCs.
did u ever think since jerry richardson been out of town all this week maybe he whent ask the people he was interviewing if they wanted to keep ron rivera for another year or fire and maybe ask other gm to and based on there answer he decided

Beane being a secondary prospect and already in house gives him the edge. See loyalty above. All things point to him being our guy.


I agreed with everything you said, except this. However, the reasons I disagree come from assumptions formed beyond the scope of your argument, so the validity of facts that formed my bias are acknowledged to be questionable.

The word on the street: Panthers want a guy with a strong scouting background.
Triple negative: Not hiring Beane does not mean that they are not being loyal to him.
Extensive list of interviews being scheduled: Would we have so many names on our list of candidates to interview and would we have hired Ernie Occorsi (sp?) to retain Beane?
Experience matters: We have a coach with 2 year of experience, young coordinators. Heck, our team President has limited experience in the NFL. Do we really need a rookie GM from Norwood with limited experience in player personnel to be evaluating talent, brokering trades, and working with the cap?
Beane learned what he knows from Marty Hurney, who was fired in October.
Beane scares me to death.

Well, many of the recent Superbowl champs have had GMs who didn't hire the HCs.

which ones? Giants, Packers, Steelers, and Saints HC where all hired by teams consisting of the owner but as well as the GM.
"The other names have only recently come out, but had they declined, yes we would have heard."
Knowing this organization as well as you do, how can you say this with any certainty?

Please remember that the only legitimate source for any information is the same guy who claimed not to know who Harbaugh was a couple years ago during the same presser he drew us the pie chart.

Scenario:
JR to Morrison: "Call this guy, this guy, this guy and this guy. See if they'd be interested in a GM job."
Morrison to JR: "Okay, three of the 4 are interested in talking."
JR: "Call 'em back, see when we can get together."

Released: "We're interviewing this guy and this guy."

Bottom line: It serves no purpose to say anything about anyone who declined an interview, and I don't think the front office would do so unless JR told them to. And why would he do that when all it may accomplish is plant a seed of doubt in someone's mind who may be on the interview list. You don't think all these GMs play golf together and talk?

which ones? Giants, Packers, Steelers, and Saints HC where all hired by teams consisting of the owner but as well as the GM.


Those GMs were given a HC. They didn't hire their own guy

It takes all the pressure off the GM to decide the coaching piece while he fixes the cap and get the lay of the land. No matter what Rivera does, he is looking good. Gets to keep him if he is successful or can him and bring in another guy when he is ready to make wholesale changes. He will be seen as decisive if he pulls the trigger and successful if we have a winning season. Richardson has always let the GM manage the money and players. He has people like Morrison to oversee things and provide guidance.

This is the upside to JR opting to keep Rivera--it gives an incoming GM a pass on the first season.

Regardless of what people may think of JR and the way the Panthers are run, if you want to be a GM, you have a choice of six franchises. If you compare them to the Panthers, here's what you see, in what I think is descending order of desirability:

Chargers: Probably the most desirable of landing spots. There's a troubling lack of talent on defense, but that can be fixed through free agency and the draft over the next couple of seasons. There's a patient owner, a franchise quarterback, and you get to pick the coach.

Cardinals: There's a great defense in place and you get to choose your coach. The offense needs a lot of work.

Chiefs: Your coach has been chosen for you and will want final say over personnel, but at least you know he's good. Your starting QB is a journeyman. On the bright side, there's talent on defense and the franchise has a decent history.

Browns: You might have a franchise quarterback, but it's more likely you have Weinke 2.0. There's talent and a passionate fan base, and there's a rich history. Unfortunately, it's pretty much a losing history.

Jags: There's talent, but the team sorely needs a franchise quarterback (Gabbert isn't it). You get to choose your coach. There's a real challenge regarding the overall franchise stability, because of lackluster attendance, so you may end up in LA at some point.

Jets: You get a terrible owner, a coach who won't cooperate with you, no quarterback, and the New York media to contend with. What's not to love?

Looking at that list, I think that the Panthers come in 2nd or 3rd. San Diego is going to be the preferred landing spot of a lot of aspiring GMs, IMHO.

"The other names have only recently come out, but had they declined, yes we would have heard."
Knowing this organization as well as you do, how can you say this with any certainty?

Please remember that the only legitimate source for any information is the same guy who claimed not to know who Harbaugh was a couple years ago during the same presser he drew us the pie chart.


How about because the guys we're interviewing don't work for this organization yet.

What reason would their current employers have to suppress news that they're declining interviews elsewhere?

Heck, most teams trumpet that sort of thing ("See that? We're so great people want to stay with us rather than get promoted with other teams.")

Well, many of the recent Superbowl champs have had GMs who didn't hire the HCs.


Just because you hire a new GM doesn't mean you have to hire a new HC.

Ernie Accorsi hired Tom Coughlin. Were they supposed to fire Tom Coughlin when Jerry Reese took over for Accorsi?

Those GMs were given a HC. They didn't hire their own guy



Sean Payton

This is the first coach hired by current general manager Mickey Loomis, who was promoted after team owner Tom Benson fired Randy Mueller in 2002. Mueller, now the Miami Dolphins' GM, hired Haslett

.
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2295741

Mike McCarthy

Packers general manager Ted Thompson chose San Francisco 49ers offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy to be the team's new coach, with an official announcement coming Thursday afternoon.


http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2288985

Mike Tomlin

But Mr. Tomlin thoroughly impressed the Steelers' three-man search committee -- president Art Rooney, chairman Dan Rooney and football operations director Kevin Colbert -- in his first interview, and he immediately became a serious candidate.


http://www.post-gaze.../#ixzz2HDehfx9J

Tom Coughlin

So it was with great confidence that Ernie Accorsi and I recommended to my father and Bob Tisch in 2004 that we hire Tom


http://bleacherrepor...h-in-perpetuity


the GM or future GM where all involved with hiring the coach. now do we know thats what Jerry was doing all week asking the GM porspects what they thought of Rivera , no. but i hope so.

I think Zod's trolling a little with that last line.

i know...at least i hope.

kind of surprised that wh*re was bleeped out.
If I was a GM, it'd be mighty hard to pass up unlimited Bojangles on game day.

How about because the guys we're interviewing don't work for this organization yet.

What reason would their current employers have to suppress news that they're declining interviews elsewhere?

Heck, most teams trumpet that sort of thing ("See that? We're so great people want to stay with us rather than get promoted with other teams.")


The very opposite reason is just as likely. Perhaps because guys choosing not to be interviewed don't work here, either.

Teams are only required to request permission from a team when:
* That team is still in their post-season or has not finished their schedule.
* The person being interviewed is seeking a promotion.

If a GM is seeking a lateral move as GM from one team to another, permission is not required unless the team is still playing its scheduled games.

Obviously, this is also dependent upon the contract status of the interviewee. In other words, if JR wanted to interview Mike Tannenbaum, now that he's out of work, he doesn't have to say anything to anyone. Who knows, Ernie Accorsi might be the guy.

The very opposite reason is just as likely. Perhaps because guys choosing not to be interviewed don't work here, either.

Teams are only required to request permission from a team when:
* That team is still in their post-season or has not finished their schedule.
* The person being interviewed is seeking a promotion.

If a GM is seeking a lateral move as GM from one team to another, permission is not required unless the team is still playing its scheduled games.

Obviously, this is also dependent upon the contract status of the interviewee. In other words, if JR wanted to interview Mike Tannenbaum, now that he's out of work, he doesn't have to say anything to anyone. Who knows, Ernie Accorsi might be the guy.


You're making a reach that Mister Fantastic would have trouble with here.

We're not looking at existing GMs, so I'm not sure why you included that bit.

The Jets, Jaguars and Chargers have all had prospects decline to interview. Eric DeCosta preemptively declined everybody. All of it was publicized.

Down here, we've made four requests. All were publicized. Our confirmed interviews are public knowledge as well (Gettleman Monday, Ross Tuesday).

You can continue to believe that there's some super secret sneakiness going on if you want to, but there's really nothing to support it.
Honestly I would think that the pecking order would be.

Chargers

Chiefs

Panthers

Each one has their issues, but those three all have some talent, and either great locations or great fan bases.

Chargers have their QB, and a young but talented D, a great location, but a really poor stadium situation.

Chiefs have a great fan base, and a great HC, not the best location, and no QB.

Panthers have their QB, and some pieces of talent, but will be hamstrung a bit by the cap, but play in a great location.
Hard to believe any team is a bigger Mongolian Cluster @#$% than the Jets right now. And new owner aside, the Browns are perpetual losers.

Even those teams have interested candidates.

the GM or future GM where all involved with hiring the coach. now do we know thats what Jerry was doing all week asking the GM porspects what they thought of Rivera , no. but i hope so.


Giants - Jerry Reese became GM in 2007. He inherited Coughin who was hired in 2004.

Steelers - Cowher was the inherited coach.

Neither of them had won rings yet. Given to new GMs. They account for 3 of last 15 rings given out.

There are other examples, those are two Superbowl examples from well regarded organizations. point simply is that isn't something just Jerry Jones would do
You guys know the Panthers situation really well but you don't know all the issues with other franchises. Jerry Richardson is respected around the league. By the way, if teams don't leak that their guys are turning down interviews then Agents definitely are. Agents number one job is to create an image of demand for their clients.

Giants - Jerry Reese became GM in 2007. He inherited Coughin who was hired in 2004.

Steelers - Cowher was the inherited coach.

Neither of them had won rings yet. Given to new GMs. They account for 3 of last 15 rings given out.

There are other examples, those are two Superbowl examples from well regarded organizations. point simply is that isn't something just Jerry Jones would do

the GM Ernie hired Coughin and won a super bowl. why would Reese come in and fire a super bowl winning coach?how did Cowher get into the convo, besides the guy who replaced him won a super bowl and was hired by the team that consist of the GM. my point is in those organization the GM is apart of the team that fires and hires most coaches. not just the owner.
I think it's a good GM job b/c it's honestly relatively low pressure considering other jobs out there right now. Only drawback is that JR just made a decision classically made by the GM. So now the GM has to live with a guy he didn't pick for at least one more year.
Any GM worth having would be interested.

You can continue to believe that there's some super secret sneakiness going on if you want to, but there's really nothing to support it.


You're making some pretty strong assumptions and the only point I've been illustrating is nobody knows anything except what JR wants them to know.

I have a hard time understanding why you're so intent on everything being public knowledge, when in reality there is more talking, texting and phone calls going on than you think. Just because every little tidbit isn't out there on some internet message board doesn't mean it's not happening. The ostrich taught us that.

My better half is a COO running a multi-million dollar corporation and has been contacted over the past 12 years by a few dozen companies desiring her leadership. She's declined interviews out of hand and accepted others. But she hasn't necessarily reported every interview she declined to the Board of Directors or anyone else outside of myself for that matter. What purpose does that serve, besides making it appear as though 1) you either don't like it here and you're looking elsewhere or 2) you're trying to wrangle a new contract.

I understand there's probably a world of difference in the 2, but business is business and most savvy business people don't publicly discuss every move they make.