Seattle and Carolina Records and Draft Orders: A comparison

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

You can continue to worship at the altar of the worst current GM in the NFL, but those of us that have any sense are pretty glad he and Hurney are gone. 

That's a pretty goofy statement, and one that tells me you don't have much of an answer.

What I have maintained (and still do) is that he's the best GM the Panthers have had to date. The records reflect that. How he does elsewhere, I don't really give a sh-t.

Truth be told, for all his flaws Ron Rivera is probably the best coach we've had. He certainly the most successful, but now he's gone so c'est la vie.

Gettleman being fired was a stupid act by a stupid owner, but we still could have been okay if he'd been replaced by somebody decent. Instead we got Marty, and four years later here we are.

What matters now is how our new GM does. And the hope is that he takes over the title of "best Panthers GM" and does so in convincing fashion.

[kungfoodude]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

That's a pretty goofy statement, and one that tells me you don't have much of an answer.

What I have maintained (and still do) is that he's the best GM the Panthers have had to date. The records reflect that. How he does elsewhere, I don't really give a sh-t.

Truth be told, for all his flaws Ron Rivera is probably the best coach we've had. He certainly the most successful, but now he's gone so c'est la vie.

Gettleman being fired was a stupid act by a stupid owner, but we still could have been okay if he'd been replaced by somebody decent. Instead we got Marty, and four years later here we are.

What matters now is how our new GM does. And the hope is that he takes over the title of "best Panthers GM" and does so in convincing fashion.

Like I said, you have long made your fetish for Nippleshorts known but anyone with any actual intelligence could see he wasn't a good GM. You can look no further than his drafts and his laundry list of idiotic free agency moves(Matt Kalil, anyone?) that marked his exit from the team. 

He completely deserved to get fired but Hurney didn't deserve to be his replacement. Had we kept him, I'm sure we'd probably be in just as dire a situation as we are now. Perhaps even worse.

[trueblade]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

We were winning.

That's all I really care about.

correlation does not imply causation

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

Like I said, you have long made your fetish for Nippleshorts known but anyone with any actual intelligence could see he wasn't a good GM. You can look no further than his drafts and his laundry list of idiotic free agency moves(Matt Kalil, anyone?) that marked his exit from the team. 

He completely deserved to get fired but Hurney didn't deserve to be his replacement. Had we kept him, I'm sure we'd probably be in just as dire a situation as we are now. Perhaps even worse.

I'm used to better answers than this from you. Disappointing.

But again, how I judge a GM is by whether we win or lose. I don't give a damn how we get there anymore than I give a damn if we played like sh-t in a game we won.

If you actually think there are things that matter more than wins and losses, I can't help you.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, trueblade said:

correlation does not imply causation

Would you say Marty was really a great GM and it was somebody / everybody else's fault we lost?

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm used to better answers than this from you. Disappointing.

But again, how I judge a GM is by whether we win or lose. I don't give a damn how we get there anymore than I give a damn if we played like sh-t in a game we won.

If you actually think there are things that matter more than wins and losses, I can't help you.

Yes, we are all aware that you move the bar however you see fit to suit your argument. It's well documented and recognized. The rest of us can at least look at the body of work and see that he was mostly awful, but had some good points(did a phenomenal job initially dumpster diving, did a great job of digging us out of Hurney Cap Hell). 

If you think that you can just twist the argument to making the ultimate measure of the GM to be the thing that he controls the least, well, as they say in the South.....bless your heart.

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, trueblade said:

correlation does not imply causation

Pissing in the wind, sir. Mr. Scott has thousands of messages on this board making the same dumb argument for why Gettleman was great. The fact is, he just LIKED Gettleman. He cannot be logical about it, that's his boy for whatever reason and he's been dying on this hill forever.

 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

Yes, we are all aware that you move the bar however you see fit to suit your argument. It's well documented and recognized. The rest of us can at least look at the body of work and see that he was mostly awful, but had some good points(did a phenomenal job initially dumpster diving, did a great job of digging us out of Hurney Cap Hell). 

If you think that you can just twist the argument to making the ultimate measure of the GM to be the thing that he controls the least, well, as they say in the South.....bless your heart.

Don't have to move it at all. when you resort to stupid sh-t like "you've got a fetish" or "you just worship this guy", it's pretty obvious you're losing (and likely you know it).

And yes, wins and losses are what they're judged by, same as head coaches. if you can find a record book where the NFL or anybody measures greatness by draft picks, free agent moves or anything else, feel free to link it. it'll probably be right next to the one that judges coaches by whether they went into games they lost with a good game plan and made solid adjustments.

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Don't have to move it at all. when you resort to stupid sh-t like "you've got a fetish" or "you just worship this guy", it's pretty obvious you're losing (and likely you know it).

And yes, wins and losses are what they're judged by, same as head coaches. if you can find a record book where the NFL or anybody measures greatness by draft picks, free agent moves or anything else, feel free to link it. it'll probably be right next to the one that judges coaches by whether they went into games they lost with a good game plan and made solid adjustments.

It's the coaches and players job to win the games. They plan every week and practice to make that happen. It's the GM's responsibility to make sure they have the horses to accomplish that mission. So, if you are gonna give credit for wins and losses, why don't you show me this list of great GM's that made dumb coaches into winners? 

That's why GM's are defined by a lot more than wins and losses, because they can't control what the guys on the field do every game. That's where the OBVIOUS measures are, free agency, the draft, and occasionally hiring the guy who is winning and losing on the field.

It's not my fault that you refuse to acknowledge that those are valid and frequently used measures for general management success. I am well aware of why you ignore them, because when it comes to Gettleman, you are an illogical fanboy. I mean, I don't have to prove it, anyone with use of this site can simply look through the past 6 years of your post history and show it. 

[Mr. Scot]

8 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

It's the coaches and players job to win the games. They plan every week and practice to make that happen. It's the GM's responsibility to make sure they have the horses to accomplish that mission. So, if you are gonna give credit for wins and losses, why don't you show me this list of great GM's that made dumb coaches into winners? 

That's why GM's are defined by a lot more than wins and losses, because they can't control what the guys on the field do every game. That's where the OBVIOUS measures are, free agency, the draft, and occasionally hiring the guy who is winning and losing on the field.

It's not my fault that you refuse to acknowledge that those are valid and frequently used measures for general management success. I am well aware of why you ignore them, because when it comes to Gettleman, you are an illogical fanboy. I mean, I don't have to prove it, anyone with use of this site can simply look through the past 6 years of your post history and show it. 

If these are perfectly valid facts, then why can't you debate them without sounding emotional and triggered?

There are a million things that affect every football season from personnel moves to coaching strategies to player behavior / misbehavior to just plain dumb luck. But there's only one result that accounts for every one of those things, and that's whether you win or lose.

Hell, you could go back and pick apart moves that the 49ers made during the '80s if you wanted to. Maybe you could come to the conclusion that Carmen Policy wasn't a great team builder.

Think anybody would give a sh-t?

No. 

All they care about is four Super Bowls. And likewise, all I care about is we were winning. Heck, I'd have been okay with keeping Rivera if we stayed successful under those conditions.

And when it comes to the new GM, that's still all I care about.

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

If these are perfectly valid facts, then why can't you debate them without sounding emotional and triggered?

There are a million things that affect every football season from personnel moves to coaching strategies to player behavior / misbehavior to just plain dumb luck. But there's only one result that accounts for every one of those things, and that's whether you win or lose.

Hell, you could go back and pick apart moves that the 49ers made during the '80s if you wanted to. Maybe you could come to the conclusion that Carmen Policy wasn't a great team builder.

Think anybody would give a sh-t? No. All they care about is four Super Bowls. And likewise, all I care about is we were winning. Heck, I'd have been okay with keeping Rivera if we stayed successful under those conditions.

And when it comes to the new GM, that's still all I care about.

LOL. I am not emotional at all. I am literally pointing out that you are a fanboy. You have literally always been a Gettleman fanboy. It's not my fault you just don't accept that.

We all care about winning. The difference is that we are debating HOW we got there and HOW we didn't. Gettleman was just as much HOW we didn't get there as he was HOW we did. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

LOL. I am not emotional at all. I am literally pointing out that you are a fanboy. You have literally always been a Gettleman fanboy. It's not my fault you just don't accept that.

We all care about winning. The difference is that we are debating HOW we got there and HOW we didn't. Gettleman was just as much HOW we didn't get there as he was HOW we did. 

We'll see, one of us has been able to do this debate without resorting to personal insults like "fanboy" and 'fetish".

 Hint: It isn't you.

You want to say you're not emotional? Evidence says otherwise.

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

We'll see, one of us has been able to do this debate without resorting to personal insults like "fanboy" and 'fetish".

 Hint: It isn't you.

You want to say you're not emotional? Evidence says otherwise.

Lol. It is not personal, Mr. Scot. I have had hundreds of conversations with you and rarely personally attack you. I'm sorry if you feel that way. I am literally pointing out what you actually do. Why do you think I say, "Just look at his posts."

You have stayed on point for the entire episode with the, 'Well, we won while he was here!' argument, regardless of any other things he did that was bad. That's not we throwing logic out the window. Sort of like I didn't throw logic out the window when I said, 'Well I don't care how he did anywhere else!' when it gets pointed out how terrible he is doing in New York.

You do realize that undermines basically any credibility you have in this argument, right?

[Mr. Scot]

8 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Lol. It is not personal, Mr. Scot. I have had hundreds of conversations with you and rarely personally attack you. I'm sorry if you feel that way. I am literally pointing out what you actually do. Why do you think I say, "Just look at his posts."

You have stayed on point for the entire episode with the, 'Well, we won while he was here!' argument, regardless of any other things he did that was bad. That's not we throwing logic out the window. Sort of like I didn't throw logic out the window when I said, 'Well I don't care how he did anywhere else!' when it gets pointed out how terrible he is doing in New York.

You do realize that undermines basically any credibility you have in this argument, right?

Not really.

Marv Levy was a great coach in Buffalo but mediocre in Kansas City. Does the failure in one place negate what he did in another?

Likewise, Jimmy Johnson won  Super Bowls in Dallas but couldn't even get to the championship game in Miami. Does that make what he did in Dallas invalid?

I could bring up Belichick too but I think you get the point.

Situations vary. That's why I'm not arguing that Gettleman is doing great now. He's obviously not. But that doesn't negate that he and Rivera as a combo were winning when they were here.

Again, the point isn't to say Gettleman is a great GM, but that he did a good job while he was here and he was the best we've had so far. 

And as previously mentioned, I really hope that fact is no longer true very soon.