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!

     

One hire...or two?


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Look over the staff of most NFL teams and you'll see someone with the title "Director of Player Personnel". In the majority of management models, this is the guy who oversees all scouting and talent evaluation at both the college and pro level. What differentiates them from a GM or an assistant GM is that they don't necessarily do any actual management, only evaluation.

And yes, the Panthers used to have one of those. The last one was Jack Bushofsky, who retired in 2003 leaving Marty Hurney pretty much running the whole show.

Fast forward to today and you'll see the Panthers staff directory lists a Director of College Scouting (Don Gregory), a Director of Pro Scouting (Mark Koncz), a Director of Team Administration (Rob Rogers, the cap guy), a Director of Football Operations (Brandon Beane, a logistics guy from what little I've been able to find on him ) and - at least up until recently - a General Manager.

But no Director of Player Personnel.

So if the choice were yours, would you want to have a 'chief evaluator' back in the fold, allowing the new GM to focus on roster building and cap management, or is the notion of having that extra guy in the front office seem redundant and you'd rather just have the GM handle all of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurney is a painful reminder of what happens when the ultimate decision maker is a poor judge of talent.

Thats what Hurney was though, a talent evaluator. What we got was sub par talent at high prices.

The problem with talent evaluators at the top is that they are attached to players for reasons of pride. Its difficult for them to admit they were wrong and stick with players far too long after shelling out way to much money to retain them.

With the GM on the finance side, less emotional and prideful attachment will be there, if a player is not performing...thats on the director. There will be less of an inclination to stick with a player for no other reason than he was a high draft pick or we mistakenly gave him a truck load of cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what Hurney was though, a talent evaluator. What we got was sub par talent at high prices.

The problem with talent evaluators at the top is that they are attached to players for reasons of pride. Its difficult for them to admit they were wrong and stick with players far too long after shelling out way to much money to retain them.

With the GM on the finance side, less emotional and prideful attachment will be there, if a player is not performing...thats on the director. There will be less of an inclination to stick with a player for no other reason than he was a high draft pick or we mistakenly gave him a truck load of cash.

I was thinking more along the lines of auto industry bean counters that override the engineers, resulting in cars like the Pinto with exploding fuel tanks.

I would have never guessed Hurney was hired for his abilities to evaluate talent.

He definitely seemed to hang on to his draft picks well beyond their expiration dates and pay them like pro bowlers.

You make a compelling case for the money guy being in charge. Time will tell.

Hopefully the new front office personnel turn out to be a vast improvement over what the Panthers have grown accustom to. They already have a deep enough hole to climb out of as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Cat

Who ever we hire I want them to be ruthless pricks with no loyalty to individual players - I want them only to be looking at how a move will help this team win football games. That has always been a major fault of this outfit - putting individuals over the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever we hire I want them to be ruthless pricks with no loyalty to individual players - I want them only to be looking at how a move will help this team win football games. That has always been a major fault of this outfit - putting individuals over the team.

I agree.

I would also like two. Checks and balances need to be in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see two purely because I think our net value will be higher if we go that route. A very good talent guy plus a very good finance / cap / contract guy is going to leave us better in both areas, more than likely, than one guy who does both.

The fields are so disparate that we'd almost definitely have to lower the bar to get two in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I’m not suggesting that tanking is the right thing to do every time. I do think that if you have guys like Burns and Moore that you will trade anyway, then you should think about tanking and getting max value, especially if you want to grab a QB that might go 1st overall. We tried to do both. Trade CMC for picks but don’t take 3 1sts and a 2nd for Burns and Moore. Instead, we won a few games and then threw in Moore on a trade because we didn’t tank and we gave Burns away for a 2nd. Can you honestly say that fully tanking, by trading away all our best guys who weren’t in future plans, in 2022 wouldn’t have made our team better now? We wanted a rookie QB and we didn’t extend the main guy we didn’t want to trade. We were 100% in full tear down and we could have been a playoff team last year if we used the 4 extra 1sts or 3 1sts and 2 2nds (counting picks saved on Young by being pick 3 or 4 not 9) on D. Culture building is funny. It took three coaching changes to seemingly get there. Morgan and Canales weren’t in charge when we “protected” our culture. We still traded Burns and Moore, we just lost 3 first round picks in the process. Also, do you think the Eagles are in a bad place because of their coach clearly tanking a game for a draft pick? Remember that? It was obvious and the coach was fired. The funny thing is that this is something teams do all the time but they add their stars (like Cam in 2016, CMC, Burns, etc.) to IR or rest them in week 16/17. Pederson was just dumb and made it obvious. He could have just sat his starters to start. Anyway, did that incident tank risk their credibility? Did Barkley decide to not sign with them? Seems like their SB win and other SB visit say they are just fine. Winning makes culture, picking the right coach makes culture, trading away guys who are on other teams in a year for top picks and keeping more picks by having a better starting pick to trade up, does not impact culture. If it helps you win, culture will be fine, ask the Eagles.
×
×
  • Create New...