Gettleman vs Hurney... who is the better GM

[pantherj]

For some reason if you don't spend hours compiling everything Hurney has done then fans fall back on this "all you have is Cam" type argument which everyone already knows is horseshit. It's so strange.

[frash.exe]

these are two very different GMs

gettleman is an extremely procedural GM. he could analyze a player’s skills and measurables and figure out where they would project on a pro level. so for a player like tre boston he would’ve evaluated as a safety at the collegiate level, and his analysis would’ve given him the conclusion of whether or not this is a guy who could handle playing safety at the pro level. if not it would be a pass. gettleman had two opportunities to pick in the top 15 in his entire run and he knocked it out of the park both times. while his later first round picks aren’t significant, he was so much better in the mid rounds than hurney was/is. in a nutshell, tre boston is easily better than any fourth round pick hurney ever made. he valued filling the roster with no name players that can still fill a niche, which seriously helped set up the team’s 2015 run. 

hurney has always taken a more philosophical approach to drafting. he values positional versatility in general, which i think is one of his most frustrating aspects because unless you’re picking in the top 15 and getting a great all around athlete it doesn’t translate to success and he continues to do it. he thinks he can find gems in mid round college CBs that project to FS. he likes H-backs a lot for some reason. he drafted armanti edwards in a round that nobody else would touch with a ten foot pole, and he traded a second rounder to do it! a guy who any average GM would’ve figured out that wouldn’t project to a position in the pros. his latest investment in that school of thought, rashaan gaulden, is an obvious dud. it’s funny when you think about it but in two trades, hurney replaced the combination of kelvin benjamin/daryl worley for torrey smith/rashaan gaulden. two guys that were far from perfect and in one case their development was completely stalled, but would’ve at least been serviceable depth for two players that didn’t produce anything of substance. how the fug you can trade two very inconsistent players away and still eat poo at the end of it all is remarkably marty. 

gettleman was not perfect but the team was flat out better with him at the helm, and he absolutely was not fired for the right reasons. as far as perception goes, one guy got more wins out of the final product while getting trashed constantly for every difficult decision that had to be made, while another one sits and watches the team rot and gets a gold star for making a good top 15 pick and not bringing in any other meaningful talent. 

i’m hoping the next search for a GM starts very soon and incorporates the lessons learned from both while changing the culture of mediocrity that we regressed back into when the last owner decided to bring back his loyal crony.

[Carl Spackler]

They suck in different ways.

[Mr. Scot]

10 minutes ago, bobowilson said:

Marty Hurney didn't just draft Cam, stop being dumb

He drafted a dozen Pro Bowlers around Cam

That 2015 was one of the most stacked teams at nearly every position, and all a result of Hurney picks and trades

 

And built them into rosters that lost more games than they won.

That's pretty much the bottom line. Nobody gives youso much as a participation trophy for drafting pro bowlers. You don't even get lovely parting gifts.

(although granted, Marty might get some of those in a few months)

[Mr. Scot]

13 minutes ago, pantherj said:

No for brevity sake I am not listing every single draft pick and FA signing Hurney and Gettleman ever made. That doesn't mean I am only thinking of Cam Newton (good lord guys) of course it's not that simple.

Cam blew up and the league wasn't sure how to handle him, but the "talent" around him wasn't great, and what was came from Hurney.

The team is important of course, not just individuals. I am not arguing Hurney is a great GM, but rather I prefer him to Gettleman.

Then you prefer losing to winning, because that's what differentiates them.

If you think sitting down and analyzing every move, draft pick, free agent, trade or whatever means jack sh-t, you're doing it wrong.

Winning is the only thing that matters, and we did a lot more of that with Gettleman than we did with Hurney.

So unless you can convince me that there's something more important than winning football games, I'm afraid that's game set and match for me.

[bobowilson]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

 

Winning is the only thing that matters, and we did a lot more of that with Gettleman than we did with Hurney.

So unless you can convince me that there's something more important than winning football games, I'm afraid that's game set and match for me.

Yet you're making excuses for Gettleman 'inheriting a bad Giants roster' in the other thread today

 

[pantherj]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Then you prefer losing to winning, because that's what differentiates them.

If you think sitting down and analyzing every move, draft pick, free agent, trade or whatever means jack sh-t, you're doing it wrong.

Winning is the only thing that matters, and we did a lot more of that with Gettleman than we did with Hurney.

So unless you can convince me that there's something more important than winning football games, I'm afraid that's game set and match for me.

I would analyze every move absolutely. If you think it doesn't mean jack poo then that's your opinion. I would never adopt that opinion.

A few key injuries can be the difference between a winning season and a losing season. Winning and losing can be fickle in the NFL. Just looking at the win/loss column to evaluate a GM sounds crazy to me, but I'd make an exception if the team were truly dominant every season.  

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, bobowilson said:

Yet you're making excuses for Gettleman 'inheriting a bad Giants roster' in the other thread today

Didn't make excuses. Don't need to. He's not the GM of my team.

I did, however point out that his starting point was not as good as Hurney's, and Marty has done nothing but make his team worse.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, pantherj said:

I would analyze every move absolutely. If you think it doesn't mean jack poo then that's your opinion. I would never adopt that opinion.

A few key injuries can be the difference between a winning season and a losing season. Winning and losing can be fickle in the NFL. Just looking at the win/loss column to evaluate a GM sounds crazy to me, but I'd make an exception if the team were truly dominant every season.  

If you want to do that for a single-season, maybe.

Marty has losing teams in all but three years of his Panthers stewardship.

Do you want to try to tell me that eleven losing seasons are all just the result of the fickle hand of fate?

How many more losing seasons would it take for you to start thinking "You know what? Maybe this guy isn't very good." 

[thefuzz]

3 minutes ago, pantherj said:

I would analyze every move absolutely. If you think it doesn't mean jack poo then that's your opinion. I would never adopt that opinion.

A few key injuries can be the difference between a winning season and a losing season. Winning and losing can be fickle in the NFL. Just looking at the win/loss column to evaluate a GM sounds crazy to me, but I'd make an exception if the team were truly dominant every season.  

I don't know how you can't look at Ozzie Newsome, Kevin Colbert, Bill Belichick, and John Schneider and say that they are good GMs?

Their record speaks for itself.  It's just not that complicated.

[pantherj]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

If you want to do that for a single-season, maybe.

Marty has losing teams in all but three years of his Panthers stewardship.

Do you want to try to tell me that all of those are just the fickle hand of fate?

Marty doesn't get a free pass for losing so many games under his management. That is factored into his evaluation, and he has come up lacking. I would fire Marty and find a better GM.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, pantherj said:

Marty doesn't get a free pass for losing so many games under his management. That is factored into his evaluation, and he has come up lacking. I would fire Marty and find a better GM.

Which is exactly what I want to do, so fine.

[pantherj]

1 minute ago, thefuzz said:

I don't know how you can't look at Ozzie Newsome, Kevin Colbert, Bill Belichick, and John Schneider and say that they are good GMs?

Their record speaks for itself.  It's just not that complicated.

I didn't say anything about any of those GMs.

[MasterAwesome]

Remember when Gettleman signed Beckham to that massive extension, only to trade him away months later? And eat $16 million in cap for absolutely nothing?

Remember when Gettleman, leading the 2-6 Giants at the time, traded a 3rd and 5th for Leonard Williams in the last year of his contract? Then proceeded to continue losing the next 4 games? That trade reeked of desperation and it only looks worse and worse as the Giants continue to lose. Those traded draft picks just keep looking juicier and juicier. If Hurney did that, people would be flipping OUT about him “mortgaging the future” to save his ass.

Gettleman is getting exposed up in New York. Part of me feels fortunate that we were so cash-strapped during the Gettleman years cause I have a feeling he would have signed some god-awful contracts if he actually had money to work with. The only thing he excelled at was dollar-store shopping in FA. But that’s not conducive to building sustainable, consistent success in this league (as evident by still failing to achieve back-to-back winning seasons during his stint).

As far as Hurney...meh. I found myself (and many of us here) to agree wholeheartedly with many of his moves at the time, but they just didn’t pan out. I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other about keeping him or firing him.