53 Man Roster Control Not a Requirement When Hiring Exec Under Contract

[slats]

Jets don’t need to give final say over 53-man roster to hire an executive away from another team

Posted by Mike Florio on May 28, 2019, 11:06 AM 

The fact that the Jets have requested permission to interview at least four executives currently under contract with other teams implies that the job entails enough responsibility to permit the hire to be made; otherwise, the requests could be (and likely would be) summarily denied.

The relevant league policy requires that, in order to hire an executive under contract with another team, the Jets offer “the primary authority over all personnel decisions related to the signing of free agents, the selection of players in the College Draft, trades, and related decisions; and . . . the primary responsibility for coordinating other football activities with the head coach.”

The policy also includes this important language: “Final authority regarding the composition of the 53-player roster is not a requirement.”

This means that the Jets can hire an executive under contract with another team without offering full control over the 53-man roster. As long as the job includes “primary authority” over the signing of free agents, the draft, trades, and other personnel decisions and “primary responsibility for coordinating other football activities with the head coach,” that’s enough.

Basically, the paperwork needs to simply give the G.M. the requisite powers in writing. Whether “primary authority” means that the G.M. will have, hold, and use the ability to do whatever he wants without regard to what the coach or anyone else thinks doesn’t matter. Nine years ago, Vikings coach Brad Childress had the primary authority over the roster, allowing him to fire receiver Randy Moss on a whim. Doing so without properly consulting with others in the organization (including ownership) greased the skids for Childress’ own firing not long thereafter.

Then there’s the 2008 Dolphins and 2009 Browns. In the former example, Miami hired G.M. Jeff Ireland away from the Cowboys, even though it was widely believed that V.P. of football operations Bill Parcells was calling the shots. In the latter, Cleveland pilfered George Kokinis from Baltimore, giving him authority in writing that coach Eric Mangini had as a practical matter.

None of this stops the Jets from giving control over the 53-man roster to the G.M. Gase has made it clear that he doesn’t want it, and there’s a decent chance he means it. The overriding question continues to be whether the new G.M. will be someone who wants to work with Gase, or whether it is someone who walks through the door with a short list in hand of coaches the G.M. wants to hire, sooner or later.

If that’s the case, the Jets are destined to endure more dysfunction, until the G.M. finally gets to hire one of the coaches found on that short list.

[slats]

This makes sense to me. I think the GM should have primary control over the 90 man roster, but when it comes down to whittling it down to 53, the coaches should be the ones with primary, if not final, say. 

[k-met57]

on the surface this makes sense. i do think that this comes down to more practical matters of hiring joe douglas of whoever else without them demanding the control over the 53 for whatever reason. it seems like when it comes to the jets, the candidates have the leverage and not the other way around....

[BroadwayRay]

 

Hoping this is true. The head coach should not have the final say on the 53-man roster. That should be left up to the people who spend all their time evaluating talent.

[Thai Jet]

21 minutes ago, slats said:

This makes sense to me. I think the GM should have primary control over the 90 man roster, but when it comes down to whittling it down to 53, the coaches should be the ones with primary, if not final, say. 

I've always thought that that makes total sense. Never could figure out why the GM would have final say but in many cases he does.  Who better than the HC knows what players would function best in his system. He works with the players on a daily basis. As Parcells said, The actual cook should help buy the ingredients.

[Thai Jet]

7 minutes ago, BroadwayRay said:

 

Hoping this is true. The head coach should not have the final say on the 53-man roster. That should be left up to the people who spend all their time evaluating talent.

Gotta disagree. One would hope and pray there would be a team effort between the HC and GM at the least. Both should be totally open minded.

[jetstream23]

26 minutes ago, slats said:

This makes sense to me. I think the GM should have primary control over the 90 man roster, but when it comes down to whittling it down to 53, the coaches should be the ones with primary, if not final, say. 

I agree with you in spirit, but is the HC looking at the salary Cap when he does that final whittle down to 53?  Does a team need to be under the Cap at 90 or 53 players?  Because, that could drive a lot of the planning and roster trimming.

[BroadwayRay]

5 minutes ago, Thai Jet said:

Gotta disagree. One would hope and pray there would be a team effort between the HC and GM at the least. Both should be totally open minded.

I'm not saying the head coach should be shut out of the conversation. But GMs get paid to evaluate talent. They should have the final say.

[jetstream23]

8 minutes ago, Thai Jet said:

Gotta disagree. One would hope and pray there would be a team effort between the HC and GM at the least. Both should be totally open minded.

In 99% of cases there is a team effort.  I mean, there really has to be, right?  IMO, roster authority really only rears its head when you get down to those final 2 or 3 guys at final cuts.  It's the question of keeping similar profile players (age, cost, skill, etc.) at different positions (GM wants to keep the CB, HC wants to keep the OT) or keeping a one-dimensional guy (Kick returner, Long snapper, etc.) at the cost of another guy who may be lesser but can also be the backup or 3rd string at another spot, (KR / backup WR, LS / backup OG, etc.).  It's that bottom of the roster churn that usually causes the angst.....Do we put Danny Woodhead on the active roster as RB4 or put him on the Practice Squad where New England will snatch him up and we'll watch him score a TD in the Super Bowl?  You know, those kinds of fun decisions.

[jack48]

40 minutes ago, slats said:

This makes sense to me. I think the GM should have primary control over the 90 man roster, but when it comes down to whittling it down to 53, the coaches should be the ones with primary, if not final, say. 

Of course.  The coach should decide who gets on the field on Sunday

[jack48]

10 minutes ago, BroadwayRay said:

I'm not saying the head coach should be shut out of the conversation. But GMs get paid to evaluate talent. They should have the final say.

They pick talent.  they do not call the plays.  They do not coach to win the game.

[slats]

10 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

I agree with you in spirit, but is the HC looking at the salary Cap when he does that final whittle down to 53?  Does a team need to be under the Cap at 90 or 53 players?  Because, that could drive a lot of the planning and roster trimming.

The total cap number for the highest paid 51 players have to be under the cap until the final roster cuts are made. 

As stated above, it has to be a team effort. The head coach, I'd think, would have to consult with the GM before cutting high priced free agents or high draft picks. But most of those guys would be locks to make the team, anyway. I'm talking about the bottom of the roster, here. The head coach should be deciding what backups to keep, who's sticking primarily for special teams duty, that sort of thing, with the GM maybe in his ear suggesting that he try to keep the younger, cheaper guys for those roles. 

[Thai Jet]

6 minutes ago, jack48 said:

Of course.  The coach should decide who gets on the field on Sunday

Exactly. Who better than the HC to know what role each player will take in the upcoming game ? After all he's game planned it for at least a week.

[BroadwayRay]

7 minutes ago, jack48 said:

They pick talent.  they do not call the plays.  They do not coach to win the game.

We're talking about the 53-man roster. Yeah, let the HC pick the 46 players who play on game day. But the GM picks the 53-man roster. I could care less about that "let the chef shop for groceries" nonsense. Only a tiny minority of head coaches are good at talent evaluation. The rest are boneheads when it comes to managing and developing a roster--including every HC in the history of the Jets, except for maybe Mangini on a good day.

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, slats said:

Jets don’t need to give final say over 53-man roster to hire an executive away from another team

Posted by Mike Florio on May 28, 2019, 11:

Then there’s the 2008 Dolphins and 2009 Browns. In the former example, Miami hired G.M. Jeff Ireland away from the Cowboys, even though it was widely believed that V.P. of football operations Bill Parcells was calling the shots. In the latter, Cleveland pilfered George Kokinis from Baltimore, giving him authority in writing that coach Eric Mangini had as a practical matter.

I don't get Florio's point.  He specifically states taht Kokinis had, in writing, authority over the 53.  The fact that he didn't really have it would not change the fact that most GM's hired from other teams get the offer.  Same with Ireland.  

1 hour ago, BroadwayRay said:

Hoping this is true. The head coach should not have the final say on the 53-man roster. That should be left up to the people who spend all their time evaluating talent.

If the coach can't evaluate talent, how does he decide who plays on game day?  It should be collaborative, the only time their goals might differ would be when a coach wants somebody to win that week, while the GM wants to keep a guy