Jump to content

Why do GMs rarely get a second shot?


WayneChrebet80

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We made the playoffs the first year under Bowles too.  The new HC comes in, "changes the culture" and the team succeeds out of the gates.  That happens all the time in this league.  Gase himself made the playoffs his first year in Miami. 

If it happens with Gase in '19, it doesn't suddenly make everyone forget all the awful draft picks over a 5 year period.  And in any case, wasn't Macc on the outs with the Texans before he got hired here?  It's not like he had a tremendous reputation. 

FTR, the Jets never made the playoffs under Bowles. 

That said, I was really just throwing a line out here. I'm no fan of Mike Maccagnan, but there's also the possibility that the Jets coaching was measurably worse than the front office. I also think the Jets power structure came into play here, with Mac saving money in Bowles' 4-12 swansong, then spending big with his new head coach in hopes of making himseIf look better with a better (and offensive) head coach. If Gase comes in and, not just this season but, shows some sustainable success, and Mac lands somewhere else in the league where he's viewed as a valuable assistant, it wouldn't be beyond reason that he could get some sniffs at GM again. More so, if this draft class (particularly Polite, Edoga, & Wesco) are pieces of that success for Gase, Mac's drafting record all of a sudden looks a little better. 

And please don't take this like it's a defense of Mac, it's much more just playing devil's advocate in June. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, slats said:

FTR, the Jets never made the playoffs under Bowles. 

That said, I was really just throwing a line out here. I'm no fan of Mike Maccagnan, but there's also the possibility that the Jets coaching was measurably worse than the front office. I also think the Jets power structure came into play here, with Mac saving money in Bowles' 4-12 swansong, then spending big with his new head coach in hopes of making himseIf look better with a better (and offensive) head coach. If Gase comes in and, not just this season but, shows some sustainable success, and Mac lands somewhere else in the league where he's viewed as a valuable assistant, it wouldn't be beyond reason that he could get some sniffs at GM again. More so, if this draft class (particularly Polite, Edoga, & Wesco) are pieces of that success for Gase, Mac's drafting record all of a sudden looks a little better.  

And please don't take this like it's a defense of Mac, it's much more just playing devil's advocate in June. 

  

 

Sorry, I meant to say we had a playoff CALIBER first season under Bowles.  About 80 % of the time that teams win 10 games, they make the postseason.  While its true we feasted off a weak schedule that year, we SHOULD have made the playoffs.  Unfortunately Bowles started his campaign to be known as the worst HC in the league with his Week 17 gameplan against Buffalo, which would have given us the 11th win we needed to get in. 

I could see Macc getting another shot at a higher-level position in an organization, but it would be very hard for me to see him being a GM ever again.  It's not like he's really a well-connected guy.  The guy who recommended him has been out of the league for a long while.  And I don't really think the Jets' performance in 2019 will have a huge say in Macc's future. My guess is teams across the league recognize Macc should have been fired at minimum in January 2019, if not sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, slats said:

If Gase comes in and, not just this season but, shows some sustainable success, and Mac lands somewhere else in the league where he's viewed as a valuable assistant, it wouldn't be beyond reason that he could get some sniffs at GM again. More so, if this draft class (particularly Polite, Edoga, & Wesco) are pieces of that success for Gase, Mac's drafting record all of a sudden looks a little better. 

This year's draft class will be interesting.  When they dumped Bowles and kept Mac, plenty of rumblings were that Maccagnan deferred to Bowles for plenty of those sh*tty picks.  Gase distanced himself from this draft and then got the guy fired, so if this class pans out that will look extremely good for Maccagnan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

This year's draft class will be interesting.  When they dumped Bowles and kept Mac, plenty of rumblings were that Maccagnan deferred to Bowles for plenty of those sh*tty picks.  Gase distanced himself from this draft and then got the guy fired, so if this class pans out that will look extremely good for Maccagnan. 

If Mac really deferred to Bowles for draft picks, he will never look even slightly competent at anything ever.  The "defense" being made with those claims is that he simply didn't even try to do his job at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

If Mac really deferred to Bowles for draft picks, he will never look even slightly competent at anything ever.  The "defense" being made with those claims is that he simply didn't even try to do his job at all.

Well, it's the same story used around here to prop Mangini up on a daily basis. Good for the goose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Well, it's the same story used around here to prop Mangini up on a daily basis. Good for the goose... 

No matter what, the GM is the one who has to answer for his picks.  So Tannenbaum deserves ultimate credit for those 2006-08 drafts.  But when you have multiple HC's working under the same GM, its impossible not to notice patterns in the way picks are made.  Tannenbaum very clearly deferred to his HC.  When it works, he gets credit.  When it doesn't, he gets blamed.  And rightfully so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No matter what, the GM is the one who has to answer for his picks.  So Tannenbaum deserves ultimate credit for those 2006-08 drafts.  But when you have multiple HC's working under the same GM, its impossible not to notice patterns in the way picks are made.  Tannenbaum very clearly deferred to his HC.  When it works, he gets credit.  When it doesn't, he gets blamed.  And rightfully so. 

Oh bullsh*t.  Saying "very clearly" is saying that Mangini made the good picks.  Which is a crock of sh*t.  Mangini picked Revis and Harris, but not the boar hunter or Gholston? Rex picked Sanchez, Coples and Wilson, but not Wilkerson, Slauson or Kerley? Bullsh*t.  

The real problem is that the GM doesn't answer for his picks with the Jets. The GM and Coach both answer to the owner, who is standing next to them when these selections are made, and presumably knows who provides what input. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Oh bullsh*t.  Saying "very clearly" is saying that Mangini made the good picks.  Which is a crock of sh*t.  Mangini picked Revis and Harris, but not the boar hunter or Gholston? Rex picked Sanchez, Coples and Wilson, but not Wilkerson, Slauson or Kerley? Bullsh*t. 

 

I submit that Gholston was the right pick to make at the time, even in hindsight.  The real mistake was failing to tank properly for Matt Ryan. 

If you can't see Mangini or Rex's fingerprints all over the Tannenbaum picks, for better or worse, I don't know what to tell you.  No, the HC wasn't responsible for each and every pick.  But Rex was very loud about the guys he wanted and got. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

I submit that Gholston was the right pick to make at the time, even in hindsight.  The real mistake was failing to tank properly for Matt Ryan. 

If you can't see Mangini or Rex's fingerprints all over the Tannenbaum picks, for better or worse, I don't know what to tell you.  No, the HC wasn't responsible for each and every pick.  But Rex was very loud about the guys he wanted and got. 

Rex was very loud about everything.  One of his advantages was that the guys in the locker room were "his" guys.  This is why when he ended up with someone like Coples he was so gushing. or said "he picked the guy that was going to punch you in the nose" about Pryor.  It was all bluster, but people want to act like it means something.  It doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No matter what, the GM is the one who has to answer for his picks.  So Tannenbaum deserves ultimate credit for those 2006-08 drafts.  But when you have multiple HC's working under the same GM, its impossible not to notice patterns in the way picks are made.  Tannenbaum very clearly deferred to his HC.  When it works, he gets credit.  When it doesn't, he gets blamed.  And rightfully so. 

The thing that's so comical about the assertion is that if you spent about 5 seconds of time, you can pretty quickly see that it's 2006 that was the only outlier of Tanny's time here, not 2007 or 2008, considering that his wheeling-dealing persona kicked into full gear in 2007, and no one could make a serious argument about that draft class being nothing but team-first / lunch pail guys.

So which seems to be the more likely cause of the different approach used in only one class, that it was the draft class starting off a complete rebuild, where Tanny was on the job for just 2 months, and his predecessor (and his scouts) were still with the team?  Or because of the guy new to a completely different job, who later decided the Jets' players he couldn't live without on his next team were a backup DE, a backup safety, and a third string QB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shorter list of GM retreads notwithstanding, it is true fired HCs get more second chances than fired GMs.

HCs just have a couple serious opportunity advantages GMs don't have after getting fired, in terms of reinvigorating their reputations.

They take jobs as coordinators and turn that side of the ball around on the new team. This is the most common retread route when there's time in between HC gigs.

Though less common, same as above, except the in-between job opportunity is due to an option of being a college HC. There is no such opportunity for GMs in the college ranks. 

This subsequent success puts their names back into circulation when coaching opportunities open up. That's a harder sell as a GM, as it requires "everyone" to know you're really the one whispering in the GM's ear, are really are the one responsible for making the good draft picks and minimizing the bad ones, etc. When you're behind the scenes at another team, that reputation is harder to build unless someone's leaking this prowess that's otherwise behind closed doors, unlike a coordinator or other HC job which is in plain view for the country to see.

Previously fired HCs can also get a benefit of the doubt in terms of getting people to believe the opportunity just wasn't that great in the prior NFL stint. Conversely, most fired NFL GMs were put in the position to make a good opportunity in the first place, not be subjected to the bad one created by others. 

In short (which I have some sort of allergy to) it's easier to again demonstrate, and more importantly to be widely credited with, success in a subsequent coaching gig. More so than in a subsequent FO gig where no one really knows who is directly responsible for what good/bad moves and non-moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

In short (which I have some sort of allergy to) it's easier to again demonstrate, and more importantly to be widely credited with, success in a subsequent coaching gig. More so than in a subsequent FO gig where no one really knows who is directly responsible for what good/bad moves and non-moves.

Mangini was responsible for the good moves, obv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

The thing that's so comical about the assertion is that if you spent about 5 seconds of time, you can pretty quickly see that it's 2006 that was the only outlier of Tanny's time here, not 2007 or 2008, considering that his wheeling-dealing persona kicked into full gear in 2007, and no one could make a serious argument about that draft class being nothing but team-first / lunch pail guys.

So which seems to be the more likely cause of the different approach used in only one class, that it was the draft class starting off a complete rebuild, where Tanny was on the job for just 2 months, and his predecessor (and his scouts) were still with the team?  Or because of the guy new to a completely different job, who later decided the Jets' players he couldn't live without on his next team were a backup DE, a backup safety, and a third string QB? 

 

I mean, do you think he had any chance of trading for Brick, Mangold or Revis?...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Mangini was responsible for the good moves, obv.

lol

Funny thing is I think he was most responsible for Gholston. He wanted to replace Thomas after he initially got new-contract lazy, plus it didn't help that BB circulated rumors that he was targeting Gholston (for all we know BB's interest wasn't fake; easy for him to say it was after we got stuck with him.). 

But yeah Mangini got a lot of cherry-pick credit in hindsight. If he was such a player-picking savant, he'd be employed in someone's front office making major bank. The BB-blacklist thing probably has some legs, or at least it did, but not as much as people make out (and not by now). Owners don't give a f*** about offending Belichick when making FO hires. They want to beat him.

For every Revis he had a Gholston. For every Leon Washington he had a Schlegel. For every Harris there was a Clemens.

**** all the prior failures in the post-Parcells era. Herm, Mangini, Rex, Bowles, and all their GM counterparts along the way. **** them all and their ringless fingers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

I mean, do you think he had any chance of trading for Brick, Mangold or Revis?...

 

Do you think those players actually traded, none of whom were even guaranteed to make the Jets roster that year, contained anywhere close to the value placed on them in that deal?

Besides, you're really going the cherry-picking route to support a poster-produced myth that has little-to-no factual support?  Don't start reverting back to the mindset of your old Penny-lover days, you're better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Do you think those players actually traded, none of whom were even guaranteed to make the Jets roster that year, contained anywhere close to the value placed on them in that deal?

Besides, you're really going the cherry-picking route to support a poster-produced myth that has little-to-no factual support?  Don't start reverting back to the mindset of your old Penny-lover days, you're better than that.

 

For pete's sake, now I'm a Penny lover?  For having the audacity to suggest that our draft style changed from Mangini to Rex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

 

For pete's sake, now I'm a Penny lover?  For having the audacity to suggest that our draft style changed from Mangini to Rex?

You were one in the olden days, you know that... and you're kind of proving my point here with this windmill tilting you've got going on these last few posts.

It's not too late to turn back from the dark side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you want to splice it, however much credit you want to give Tannenbaum or Mangini for the successes or failures, it is what it is:  During the 2006-08 seasons, we brought in Ferguson, Mangold, Revis, David Harris, Kris Jenkins, Calvin Pace, Faneca, Damien Woody, Thomas Jones, Leon Washington, Tony Richardson, Brad Smith and Favre.

Even when factoring in megabust Gholston, Adrien Clarke, the boar hunter and the other mistakes made, that's a helluva haul in free agency and the draft.  If Mangini only played a small part in all of those acquisitions, that's still impressive.  Coming off the Herm era, we turned around the roster very quickly. 

Meanwhile, with Rex as HC, Tannenbaum jettisoned Faneca (cut after the Ducasse selection), Richardson and Jerricho Cotchery and replaced them with guys like Braylon Edwards, Santonio Holmes, Plaxico Burress, Derrick Mason, and Wayne Hunter, while drafting guys like Kyle Wilson, Stephen Hill, Shonn Greene, Joe McKnight and Scotty McKnight (And we know Scotty was 100 % Rex's call, per Collision Low Crossers). 

On the positive side, we added Bart Scott, Jim Leonhard, Slauson, Tomlinson, Wilkerson, Cromartie, Powell, Demario Davis and Kerley.  Slauson was a great pick and Scott, Leonhard, LT and Cromartie were sold FA adds. 

In short, we had a much lower bust rate on FA/Draft pickups while Mangini was here compared to when Rex was here, while also drafting 4 all-time great Jets. 

Draw your own conclusions.  That's not cherry picking, that's considering the whole picture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

You were one in the olden days, you know that... 

Sure, in 2004 when I was 18 years old.  I fail to see how the argument I'm making here is anything in the category of supporting Chad Pennington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Sure, in 2004 when I was 18 years old.  I fail to see how the argument I'm making here is anything in the category of supporting Chad Pennington.

Because, as you're continuing to do here, you've yet to actually acknowledge a single point actually made.  Rather, you've cherry picked individual comments and then proceeded to morph them into some nonsensical point that has not been made, nor is in any way relevant, simply to fit a fabricated narrative about the guy who failed at his very own job, never mind the mythical performance of someone else's.

Therefore, your arguments now are as devoid of logic as they were in 2004.  Viola!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

However you want to splice it, however much credit you want to give Tannenbaum or Mangini for the successes or failures, it is what it is:  During the 2006-08 seasons, we brought in Ferguson, Mangold, Revis, David Harris, Kris Jenkins, Calvin Pace, Faneca, Damien Woody, Thomas Jones, Leon Washington, Tony Richardson, Brad Smith and Favre.

Even when factoring in megabust Gholston, Adrien Clarke, the boar hunter and the other mistakes made, that's a helluva haul in free agency and the draft.  If Mangini only played a small part in all of those acquisitions, that's still impressive.  Coming off the Herm era, we turned around the roster very quickly. 

Meanwhile, with Rex as HC, Tannenbaum jettisoned Faneca (cut after the Ducasse selection), Richardson and Jerricho Cotchery and replaced them with guys like Braylon Edwards, Santonio Holmes, Plaxico Burress, Derrick Mason, and Wayne Hunter, while drafting guys like Kyle Wilson, Stephen Hill, Shonn Greene, Joe McKnight and Scotty McKnight (And we know Scotty was 100 % Rex's call, per Collision Low Crossers). 

On the positive side, we added Bart Scott, Jim Leonhard, Slauson, Tomlinson, Wilkerson, Cromartie, Powell, Demario Davis and Kerley.  Slauson was a great pick and Scott, Leonhard, LT and Cromartie were sold FA adds. 

In short, we had a much lower bust rate on FA/Draft pickups while Mangini was here compared to when Rex was here, while also drafting 4 all-time great Jets. 

Draw your own conclusions.  That's not cherry picking, that's considering the whole picture. 

So cutting Faneca, who proceeded to get a one-year deal at the fraction of the cost, before retiring a year later when he received no interest league-wide was an unforgivable mistake.  Yet the great GM-in-hiding Mangini's embarrassing antics with Pete Kendall, which created the need for Faneca in the first place, go unmentioned?  A 4th round pick on a kick returner and gimmick player in Brad Smith gets cited as a great move, but a different 4th round pick who was also primarily a STer with occasional offensive contributions in Joe McKnight was terrible?  Or would you prefer to compare that to trading for a multi-year starter in Edwards marked as a bad move?  And now we've decided Favre was a good move, and therefore Mangini gets the credit for it I guess?  Tough to keep track, considering the narrative was that he was supposedly adamantly opposed to it once he got sh*t-canned, but of course that was only after Mangini named his son after him.

You're simply trying to fit a narrative here, and the "whole picture" you're looking to paint isn't based in reality.  It's all simply circular reasoning that doesn't hold up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

However you want to splice it, however much credit you want to give Tannenbaum or Mangini for the successes or failures, it is what it is:  During the 2006-08 seasons, we brought in Ferguson, Mangold, Revis, David Harris, Kris Jenkins, Calvin Pace, Faneca, Damien Woody, Thomas Jones, Leon Washington, Tony Richardson, Brad Smith and Favre.

Even when factoring in megabust Gholston, Adrien Clarke, the boar hunter and whatever mistakes were made, that's a helluva haul in free agency and the draft.  If Mangini only played a small part in all of those acquisitions, that's impressive, especially coming off the Herm Edwards era. 

Meanwhile, with Rex as HC, Tannenbaum jettisoned Faneca (cut after the Ducasse selection), Richardson and Jerricho Cotchery and replaced them with guys like Braylon Edwards, Santonio Holmes, Plaxico Burress, Derrick Mason, and Wayne Hunter, while drafting guys like Kyle Wilson, Stephen Hill, Joe McKnight and Scotty McKnight (100 % Rex's call, per Collision Low Crossers). 

On the positive side, we added Bart Scott, Jim Leonhard, Slauson, Tomlinson, Wilkerson, Cromartie, Powell, Demario Davis and Kerley.

In short, we had a much lower bust rate on FA/Draft pickups while Mangini was here compared to when Rex was here. 

Draw your own conclusions.  That's not cherry picking, that's considering the whole picture. 

******* awesome. I was waiting for the Stephen Hill pick to come up.  Rex was on record as hating that pick.  

Faneca, Jones, Calvin Pace all got monster deals. 

Mangini was so "in" on Kris Jenkins that his first choice was @QBComa92 Shaun Rogers.  Jenkins played 16 games for Mangini in 2008 and made the pro bowl.  They were 18th in points 16th in yards.  

Wayne Hunter joined the Jets in 2008. 

In 2010 they extended three of your studs, Revis, Ferguson and Mangold, with huge deals.  That is why they didn't have any money to replace the guys that left. 

Scotty McKnight was a sh*t pick, but were Titus Adams and Nate Garner any better? 

Faneca was washed up and causing problems on that line.  They already had a solid replacement ready in Matt Slauson - drafted while Rex was coach.  Ducasse was supposed to be a tackle.  He was the (failed) insurance for Hunter. 

Is any of this part of the "whole picture" or do I have to get all @Bleedin Green up in here? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

So cutting Faneca, who proceeded to get a one-year deal at the fraction of the cost, before retiring a year later when he received no interest league-wide was an unforgivable mistake.  Yet the great GM-in-hiding Mangini's embarrassing antics with Pete Kendall, which created the need for Faneca in the first place, go unmentioned?  A 4th round pick on a kick returner and gimmick player in Brad Smith gets cited as a great move, but a different 4th round pick who was also primarily a STer with occasional offensive contributions in Joe McKnight was terrible?  Or would you prefer to compare that to trading for a multi-year starter in Edwards marked as a bad move?  And now we've decided Favre was a good move, and therefore Mangini gets the credit for it I guess?  Tough to keep track, considering the narrative was that he was supposedly adamantly opposed to it once he got sh*t-canned, but of course that was only after Mangini named his son after him.

You're simply trying to fit a narrative here, and the "whole picture" you're looking to paint isn't based in reality.  It's all simply circular reasoning that doesn't hold up.

 

I mean, I admitted that ultimately you have to give most of the credit (and blame for bad picks/FA acquisitions) to Tannenbaum.  I'd say at least 80 %.  If even 15 % of the credit goes to Mangini, his say had an impressive impact on the talent we brought in over those 3 years, and for getting the program to a point where the next HC would have success. 

It was probably a similar ratio with Rex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike tannenbaum without Eric mangini made the playoffs 3 times, won 4 playoff games.  Eric mangini without Mike tannenbaum was 10-22 and I have often posed this question- if mangini was such a personnel guru why haven't any other teams even discussed a potential front office job with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...