Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What does a GM need to be?


CanadianCat

Recommended Posts

Lots of comments on why we don't like our GM cause he was a radio personality (valid) but what is a GM and what does it take to be successful?

 

Honestly I think a GM needs to be like a good CEO that can manage multiple departments and be the face of the team. They don't need to be a scout or a cap guy they need to know how to manage SME's (subject matter experts) and let the experts do their work. A successful team is one that can handle the draft, free agency, football operations and the cap. The GM doesn't need to be the best at any one of these, they just need to be able to bring them all together... 

Think about real life examples at your work. When the best person at whatever they do is promoted you lose all that experience at that position. Now they moved to a management role which takes away from what they were really valuable at. I honestly don't care what background the general manager comes from so long as they have a proven record of managing successfully....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

Not the same thing

Actually it is.

I've been managed before by people who have never done what I do.  I know a lot of companies think if guys are "good leaders" they can manage anything, but I know from experience it's not true. When you need help from someone who understands your job, and the person you have to go to for help doesn't, it's a bad situation.

The general manager job is primarily about roster building.  That means you have to be the guy to make final decisions on who should be drafted, who you want to sign, who you want to trade for and what you're willing to give up, and how much of your salary cap a guy is truly worth.

If I'm looking for someone to do that job, I want a guy who's qualified to make those decisions, not a guy who's gonna take a poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Actually it is.

I've been managed before by people who have never done what I do.  I know a lot of companies think if guys are "good leaders" they can manage anything, but I know from experience it's not true. When you need help from someone who understands your job, and the person you have to go to for help doesn't, it's a bad situation.

The general manager job is primarily about roster building.  That means you have to be the guy to make final decisions on who should be drafted, who you want to sign, who you want to trade for and what you're willing to give up, and how much of your salary cap a guy is truly worth.

If I'm looking for someone to do that job, I want a guy who's qualified to make those decisions, not a guy who's gonna take a poll.

Regarding roster building, yes I agree that is the job but there are many aspects to that (scouting, FA, draft, cap) and your not going to get a guy that is an expert in all those areas. You also need a guy that can sell the team to the media and knows how to handle PR issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CanadianCat said:

Regarding roster building, yes I agree that is the job but there are many aspects to that (scouting, FA, draft, cap) and your not going to get a guy that is an expert in all those areas. You also need a guy that can sell the team to the media and knows how to handle PR issues. 

There are plenty of teams that have guys who are good at all of those things.

If they can't be good at all of them though, I want a guy who's got a proven track record as a talent evaluator.  That's the single most important factor in roster building.  You can get someone else to manage the cap and handle negotiations, and frankly I don't give a rat's ass whether a guy is good at PR (have you seen Belichick?)

Build a winning team and nobody cares if you're a lousy public speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GMs vary based on what they are asked to do and their roles. For example Belichick is not the GM but has final say on all personnel decisions.so he operates as the GM and the coach and whatever else he wants.

Most GMs are in charge of personnel acquisition and contract negotiations. They surely dont have to be like Gettleman and watch film all day to make their own choices if they  trust their  head coach who understands what he needs and a good scouting department who do the lions share of the player evaluations. But your GM does need to be able to determine who is giving him good advice and who knows what they are talking about. And he needs to be able to negotiate contracts and decide who to keep and who to let go. Does it help to have scouting experience and cap management experience. Absolutely. But anytime you make generalizations and use words and  phrases like always, never, the most important, etc. you bound to be wrong at least some of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
×
×
  • Create New...