Eagles Brass should hire a real GM!

by topcat6 on Jan 9, 2008 7:02 PM EST Comment 8 comments

Here is a link to a very good article about Andy Reid and the Eagles for the future. I think if this future is going to be bright we need to cut Reid's power. He isn't the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to picking talent to play on his football team.

I feel as a coach you create a special bond with players and that directly hurts his job as a GM. He likes Donovan Mcnabb,Reno Mahe as a person. Scott Young, G.Lewis etc.... If you have all this power and influence it just makes your life harder and it will eventually make you a less effective coach. I think that this has happened already.

John Smallwood agrees with me and he adds

"I think being the coach and top player-personnel guy is too much power and responsibility for one person"

"I think Reid's belief that his system is so good that it does not require superstar playmakers, except at quarterback, has prevented him from making acquisitions that might have won a Super Bowl."

"As someone who isn't all that keen on Reid's decisions in player acquisition, I believe his having ultimate authority is one of the major reasons the Eagles have slipped from an elite team in the NFL to one that is struggling to work its way back into the mix in the NFC."

In SanFran the Niners just cut Nolans power off and hired a real GM. We will see what happens. I just don't understand why more work for Reid will make the team better??? WTF? In life I feel that the ying and the yang works best in evey facet of life. Why should it be any different in the Eagles front office? Does all this player evaluation, contract mumbo jumbo and all the extra stress make Reid better at the X's and O's part of the game?

What do you guy's think?

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/sports/20080109_John_Smallwood___A_CHOOSING_PROPOSITION.html

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Coach in Control

"I think being the coach and top player-personnel guy is too much power and responsibility for one person"

So Belichick should give up his similar power? How about Mike Shanahan?

How is a lack of control over player personnel working out in Cinci for Marvin Lewis or in Detroit for anyone working with Matt Millen? Are we looking for a more meddlesome owner like Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, or Al Davis?

The only other times in their 75 year history besides 2000-2004,2006 (and beyond?) that the Eagles were and elite level team was 1947-1949, 1960-1961, and 1979-1981. Looked at from that perspective, Reid and his decisions have given us just under half our opportunties at being an elite level team.

Again I ask, if its all "Ray Rhodes players" causing Reid's success with a dash of McNabb fortune, why didn't those players do diddly-squat for Rhodes?

by Andrew on Jan 9, 2008 8:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

GM's

Ron Wolf, Bill Polian, AJ Smith, Marty Hurney and Kevin Colbert are all good examples of good GM's that make a coaches job easier. Why not agian? We had Tom Modrak and I think he did a really good job collaborating with Reid.

You are talking about Bill Belichick, and Mike Shanahan as great examples of coaches and GM's. These guy's have won superbowls. Mike Holmgren as well. Andy Reid has never won a superbowl. I think that is a major difference.

I understand that Reid has done a real good job in his time in philly. I'm not saying that he is really bad and should get fired. I am saying that there are ways to let him focus more on the X's and O's and let a GM take care of the majority of the personell issues.

I think that he has made mistakes. Here is an example from the 2007 season that could have been fixed if we had a GM. Week one we had a G.Lewis and JR Reed returning punts. They both were underqualified for the job. Reid for whatever reason made the mistake of using his trust as a coach instead of looking at it from a GM's point of view. Well (with a fair catch) if we would have won that game we could still be in the playoff's as we speak(he also didn't coach Reed up enough because he didn't know that he didn't have to field the punt). Isn't that a good enough example where his personal relationship with the players got in the way of a personell decison? I think that it is a perfect example......

And you were quoting John Smallwood not me both times.

by topcat6 on Jan 10, 2008 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Holmgren Myth

This whole idea that a coach can't take on both positions comes out of the perception that when Mike Holmgren gave up final say on personnel, the Seahawks got better. The problem with that idea is that Holmgren assembled the core of those good Seahawks teams when he was GM: he brought in Hasselbeck, drafted Alexander, Hutchinson, and Darrell Jackson. The issue wasn't that Holmgren was a bad GM or that he needed to "concentrate" on coaching, the issue was that the team was young and developing.

The GMs you bring up are decent, but are they all that better than what Reid has done? Maybe Wolf and Polian, but that's a one GM a decade pace, not exactly overwhelming that Reid can't beat out the best GM in each decade. As Andrew pointed out, Reid can't beat out the best coach of this decade either.

The GM thing is just another easy myth for lazy sportswriters (and Smallwood is lazy, he doesn't mention a single move in the entire article, it's an argument almost entirely without evidence) and shady talk radio guys to complain about.

by Behan on Jan 13, 2008 4:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I feel you...

What happens next year if we don't have a great year??? WHat do you guys do then? I don't want to shot my self in the foot but he has done a good job but how long can you defend him?

I want a NFL championship.

We don't have one.

We need to change somethings to do this..

What are you thinking we should do?

by topcat6 on Jan 13, 2008 7:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Change

I hear you on the frustration, I was born in 1979 so I don't remember any of the championship years in Philly.

To me, Andy Reid has been a good coach, and these Eagles teams have been the most fun to watch since I can remember. I look around the league and see tons of bad coaching, I don't want to make a change just for the sake of change and end up one of these teams that goes a decade without getting to or winning a playoff game (ahm, Cowboys). Why fire a known good commodity for a roll of the dice, especially when the odds suck?

by Behan on Jan 13, 2008 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say fire Reid,

I said hire a GM a let Reid collaborate with Reid. Like when Modrak was here. I hope we keeping doing really good and Reid can stay.

Im just asking everyone how much tolerance is warrented for Reid?

No one will answer. I know its a hard question.

by topcat6 on Jan 14, 2008 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The question is impossible to answer.

Because it's unquantifiable. There's just no way we can put a number on the years -- any given year, there's a (realistically speaking) 1/28 chance for any given team to win the SB. We're whining about not winning one yet, but we've played 2nd or 3rd fiddle this decade to the best dynasty in the history of the game. You can't expect to outdo the best dynasty in the history of the game, and the Eagles' run of success is second only to the Pats (with the Colts a close 3rd, or maybe slightly better than the Eagles, depending on how you view it). We all want a championship, but we've had the incredible misfortune to play in the Bill Belichick era. We would have had a SB by now if Bill Belichick wasn't on the other sideline, and there is simply no way you can convince me that Reid has been anything other than historically excellent as a GM/Coach.

Want a number? I'll give him another ~15 years to win a SB. Enough time for McNabb & Kolb to have their careers. At a 1/28 chance (if you consider a few teams have no real shot) annually, that STILL beats the odds. He'll have coached less than 28 years.

by Alon on Jan 14, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Alon,

Good point bro,

I have said that in other arguements my friend. I cannot agree that they are unbeatable though. I still feel that a team with the right amount of weapons. (The Eagles are were only 1 short if LJ was a 100%) To beat on the Pats old LB's and SS. I think that they way to beat them is to attack them short. Out D did it's thing vs Brady.

So I agree,
and I just think that we can beat them with some better moves. Like always under spending.... More money aval should mean better players.

He don't get a underspending yearly pass in my opinion though. That is dispicable to us as fans.

by topcat6 on Jan 14, 2008 4:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs