Reminds me that GMs despite the lofty qualifications and salaries are people first. As your former collogues on the PFF main pod like to say, the GM's first job is not getting fired. Thanks for the read as always, Kevin.
Great article and at the same time feels like just the beginning of a series of articles that could dive into this further. (Well if you include the podcast this is the second of a series of articles.) I do wonder that it seems clear that the long term stability between the owner, GM and coach is vital-with a hearty dose of Hall of Fame QB thrown in.
If you just look at wins from oh 2010, a totally random date that just happens to be when Howie Roseman started as GM, you see the Eagles at #9 in winning percentage and above them teams that have overall more stable management than other teams: Pats, Packers, Chiefs, Steelers, Seahawks, Saints, Ravens, and Cowboys with a gap between the Ravens and Cowboys and Eagles etc. (There is a 14 win gap between the Pats and the next six teams, a tight group which have nine wins separating #2 GB and #7 Baltimore, then 11 wins between the Ravens and Cowboys.)
Why is this? Are these top seven teams more aligned between owner, GM(s) and head coach(s)? Does each of these teams have a system that works for them well enough since over a long enough period of time these teams keep landing on top? I can see that Hermsmeyer has reason to be super excited about Roseman but does Roseman show that GMs need a learning curve that's dependent on a) the GM and owner seeing eye to eye, b) the GM picking the right coach and c) the GM picking an elite QB. Or what is the proper time frame to judge front office/owner efficiency? There are so many questions here, so many ways to look at this.
Great read! Curious about your thoughts on the Packers regarding the principal-agent problem, considering their public ownership model. The quarterback conversation is obviously different for them on account of lucking out on two HOFers for the past couple decades, but I wonder if this problem isn’t handled different in Green Bay.
Good question. There probably are some difference with the Packers model, though I'd assume Gutekunst and LaFleur still have to be more concerned about short-term stuff than most. It's difficult to assess since the Packers have had so much stability at QB through Favre and Rodgers.
Last sentence should say "rewards don’t come *without* risks." ?
Reminds me that GMs despite the lofty qualifications and salaries are people first. As your former collogues on the PFF main pod like to say, the GM's first job is not getting fired. Thanks for the read as always, Kevin.
👊
Great article and at the same time feels like just the beginning of a series of articles that could dive into this further. (Well if you include the podcast this is the second of a series of articles.) I do wonder that it seems clear that the long term stability between the owner, GM and coach is vital-with a hearty dose of Hall of Fame QB thrown in.
If you just look at wins from oh 2010, a totally random date that just happens to be when Howie Roseman started as GM, you see the Eagles at #9 in winning percentage and above them teams that have overall more stable management than other teams: Pats, Packers, Chiefs, Steelers, Seahawks, Saints, Ravens, and Cowboys with a gap between the Ravens and Cowboys and Eagles etc. (There is a 14 win gap between the Pats and the next six teams, a tight group which have nine wins separating #2 GB and #7 Baltimore, then 11 wins between the Ravens and Cowboys.)
Why is this? Are these top seven teams more aligned between owner, GM(s) and head coach(s)? Does each of these teams have a system that works for them well enough since over a long enough period of time these teams keep landing on top? I can see that Hermsmeyer has reason to be super excited about Roseman but does Roseman show that GMs need a learning curve that's dependent on a) the GM and owner seeing eye to eye, b) the GM picking the right coach and c) the GM picking an elite QB. Or what is the proper time frame to judge front office/owner efficiency? There are so many questions here, so many ways to look at this.
Great read! Curious about your thoughts on the Packers regarding the principal-agent problem, considering their public ownership model. The quarterback conversation is obviously different for them on account of lucking out on two HOFers for the past couple decades, but I wonder if this problem isn’t handled different in Green Bay.
Good question. There probably are some difference with the Packers model, though I'd assume Gutekunst and LaFleur still have to be more concerned about short-term stuff than most. It's difficult to assess since the Packers have had so much stability at QB through Favre and Rodgers.