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!

     

Business Intelligence - Tepper and Rhule get it


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interviewing employees of your competitor is a long standing practice and an invaluable tool for collecting intelligence.  You do it whenever you can, subject to certain ethical considerations, such as...

Do you actually have an opening you are trying to fill?

Interview separated employees only or those still employed?

Do you induce the disclosure of protected information through the possibility of a job offer?

Your moral compass will determine how you answer the above questions but be careful, if you are too aggressive, you can step over the line into questionable legality.  

 

  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zod said:

I have been preaching here for a while that in regards to so damn many GM interviews that Tepper was learning more and more about how other teams do things. In other industries this is called Business Intelligence and is expensive as hell to invest it. 

Now Rhule says this... 

 

For a couple of guys this new to the NFL game to take the time and really dig in and see how other teams do things I think is brilliant. They both took a huge trip farther up the learning curve. 

I would think that everyone of those conversations also talked about QB at some point.  Not just what we should do but also trying to gain insight into what other teams might be doing.  Not that the other candidates are going to give away confidential information but any information is a plus.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, joemac said:

Is this like some new phenomenon that Tepper and Rhule just figured out?  Seems pretty obvious to me...

It's not like you can just interview GM candidates every month. You actually need a position to fill and if you do it in bad faith you will make enemies fast and shoot yourself in the foot

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bythenbrs said:

 

Your moral compass will determine how you answer the above questions but be careful, if you are too aggressive, you can step over the line into questionable legality.  

 

I hate to tell ya, but if you're not pushing the legal boundaries you're going to be losing to the people who do.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I hate to tell ya, but if you're not pushing the legal boundaries you're going to be losing to the people who do.

True but do bullet point three the wrong way and you could be facing very expensive litigation.   Even if you win, it could be costly in dollars to defend and business reputation.  YMMV.

Edited by bythenbrs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...