• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

How Low Would You Go?

What's the lowest you'd pick in Round 1?

  • #3

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • #4

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • #5

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • #6

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • #7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #10

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #11

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • #12

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • #13

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No way I'm trading out of #2, there is nothing they can offer me

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • I'd go lower, let me give you the details in the comments

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Total voters
    15
It'd take quite an offer but everything is negotiable in my view. In fact I'd prefer to trade back but knowing that means we're going with Mariota under center next year, well, could be worse I suppose.

In order for Minny to make a deal in my fantasy GM role, I'd want 11,23, next years 1st and 3rd rounder plus Cousins old locker in the stadium to piss in at my leisure.
 
I chose the id go lower option.

Mostly because I don’t follow college football, have no idea who I’d want to draft nor where they should be available.

But I’m trusting in the new regime. As long as the haul we get back passes the smell test, I’ll support whatever they decide.
 
That’s really not meddling by owner.

It’s sound decision making.
I feel like the narrative on Snyder the meddling owner has become warped.

The issue is not that the owner is involved in decision making. Anyone who spends hundreds of millions, or these days multiple billions, to acquire an organization is going to be part of decision making. Asking for or expecting otherwise is outright silliness.

The problem Snyder had is that he evaluated players based on how many jerseys and seats they’d sell; that he’d overrule coaches on who starts and who sits; that he’d walk into the draft room and demand they pick a person in spite of what the football people thought was best; that he’d wine and some star players and create a toxic culture; that he’d mock or ridicule coaches in front of staff or players if he didn’t like what scheme they were running.

A competent business owner understands the people they surround themselves with, gets out of their way when they’re playing to their strengths, and keeps an eye on things when they think they’re dabbling in something they’re weak in.
 
Well, just to be clear, my personal perfect world is more similar to yours, Boone - maybe even more extreme! In my world, the owner hires a "football / organizational person" (President or GM), and then steps aside. That's it. The buck stops with THAT person, and success or failure will lead to THAT person's replacement. I think one of the serious problems with that model is when people like Snyder pretend to it as he did many times, when we all knew he was still weaseling around in different ways. However, I tend to think that when you are a businessman, a team owner, it's just very unlikely that your evaluation skills are going to be of great benefit vs someone you hired to take care of that role and fill our your org. It also has other benefits too; it insulates you from applying potentially damaging influence in a variety of ways (as you have mentioned Boone, and I agree too). That influence is not just in the decision-making, but we've seen it play out a bit with owner/QB (of course, Snyder, but even in other places). There were definite reports of some friction between Belichick, Brady, and Kraft. Even in one of the most successful groupings, there was some discontent from the coach as I recall, with the relationship between QB and owner, and while I dislike Bill a lot, I do get that. It undermines authority sometimes if the relationship goes too far in one direction. Sometimes, it absolutely can have a deleterious effect.
 
Just to add-
If you look at Snyder resume he’s a failed businessman. Look at the story of how the team is financial ruin - in my first go around on BGO I shared that the team/Snyder was in bad financial shape, and got a lot of pushback at the time. But look how it turned out?

Meanwhile Harris has a resume as a highly successful business owner

Which is why I am ok with him “being involved”
 
I think it’s often overlooked that Snyder was never really what I would call a successful business man other than having the ability or shrewdness in making deals. He parlayed advertising in medical offices and over urinals in men’s rooms and took that business pubic. He used that new-found wealth to acquire other companies before selling the lot in 1999.

His business experience, or lack thereof, was exposed as an owner of an NFL franchise.
 
Reporting up is one thing, being in the room is quite different. Maybe Harris will do exactly as he said he would and what I want. And if he doesn’t it may still work out. I’m just saying that intent and impact are two separate things.
I think there is a middle ground between "reporting up" and "exerting influence."

Being informed. That's just just reading the report, but it is actually getting information, asking questions.

Cuban said something years and years ago (back when I liked him because he wasn't afraid to throw mud at former NBA commissioner David Stern) but he said his closeness to the team allowed him to have insight and when decisions needed to be made, he had first hand knowledge rather than relying on just things people told him.

That really rang true to me and made a ton of sense.
 
Guys, to be clear here though - most of the orgs where you hear the owners names tied to the day-to-day more, I feel they are bottom dwellers or at most mediocre. The ones who do the best, love 'em or hate 'em, a lot of times the owners' involvement seems a lot more hidden. Sure, in some cases it IS there (like Kraft), but even there I think Kraft gave tons of leeway to the org. I didn't get a lot of idea that he was deeply involved but I could be wrong there. I know he talks about Aaron Hernandez and the Pats' structure, so he may be more involved. I look at the Ravens, and many other successful teams, it just looks like ownership is largely or completely out of the way of the "Football folks" while those guys are held accountable. I don't know, to me it makes a lot of sense and would be a solid structure to implement. The main ingredients from the owners are patience, humility, and certainly they do need to know how to build the org the right way at the start (those couple of hires and the message/culture needs to be solid).
 
The good owners know from business that you hire talented people and get out of their way.

But you also evaluate the results.

Some NFL owners can’t identify good hires to trust and others are hands off but their teams never win anything because there is too little accountability.

Hopefully Harris strikes the balance.

I don’t see players and executives with the Devils or 76ers criticizing Harris for polluting the well as Snyder did or Tepper is doing in Carolina.
 
The good owners know from business that you hire talented people and get out of their way.

But you also evaluate the results.

Some NFL owners can’t identify good hires to trust and others are hands off but their teams never win anything because there is too little accountability.

Hopefully Harris strikes the balance.

I don’t see players and executives with the Devils or 76ers criticizing Harris for polluting the well as Snyder did or Tepper is doing in Carolina.
What does "evaluate the results" look like, though?

You see, for the owners I am talking about, their metric is not "Super Bowl or nothing" (at least, internally). They say "We only want Championships" and that is true, but I can tell you from the organizational wording you hear and more importantly the actions within their orgs, they are patient.
The standard they tend to hold is postseason.
It tends to be, if you miss the postseason 2-3 times, you are going to start looking at major org turnover. That is not a barometer that needs active involvement. If you are making the postseason, you are giving your team a shot to win it all. Yes, there are teams who are perennial postseason entrants without a real shot at the grand prize, but you hope your structure is looking at ways to get a bit better, and yes, THAT is where you may get a bit more involved; if you find yourself in that cycle.

I think you need to start a perennial playoff cycle before you worry about that, though.

Look at the Steelers (long-tenured coach, make the postseason frequently). Look at the Penguins (long-tenured coach, recent misses of postseason, I expect them to look at letting him go soon). Look at the Patriots. Look at the Packers. The standards tend to look a bit the same. You really don't hear big statements from ownership groups. You just see some of the actions at the highest levels and then you hear from THOSE guys more.

For me, that would be my ideal approach. Very hands-off ownership, hiring only the top execs and letting them handle the business, and evaluating mostly on results after that, but giving them 2-3 years to try to get those real measurable, quantifiable results. I like Arthur Blank in some situations/quotes, but man some of his unnecessary involvement and public quotes again, they just irk me. It's not helping his team, in my opinion. These owners who talk to the media just, it just never seems all that good to me. Pretty much never.

By the way, you are definitely right with Harris RE: 76ers and Devils. I think he did strike a good balance there and I am hopeful he is going to get there here too. This may just be the set up phase where he is a bit more involved, which could be good. I still think he could step away a bit more, but you are right - with those teams, I think he was generally lauded for how he has handled them.
 
I don't think anyone in the Commanders organization is looking at a Super Bowl or bust mentality for 2024.

Before he was hired there is no doubt that Harris spoke extensively with Adam Peters about a strategic plan for the team based on an evaluation of current talent, current assets available in draft, monies available in free agency, etc.

Harris would have come to some form of agreement with Peters over that vision of the team over the next 2-3 years (or longer) for him to feel comfortable hiring him.

Unlike a lot of NFL owners that seem to talk a lot and listen a little, it appears from reports that Harris is a listener who talks a bit to ask questions and ensure all angles have been considered.

This is one reason when I hear NFL talking head say that Jayden Daniels is a better bet to win some more games in 2024 with his feet than Maye and McCarthy I have to smirk a bit.

I doubt that kind of short term thinking is what is going on in the front office.

The team will draft Daniels if it believes he is going to help win more games for the next decade.

If Maye and/or McCarthy is a better bet for the next 10 years I doubt Peters and ultimately Harris are swayed by winning a couple of more games next year in isolation.
 
I don't think anyone in the Commanders organization is looking at a Super Bowl or bust mentality for 2024
Agreed; Harris has been very clear about it, and they have been methodical in their approach. It is interesting to see how the dynamics shape out. I would characterize them as observably:
- very patient.
--- they definitely took a very methodical approach to the GM and coaching searches. The GM Search may not have seemed that way, but as more info has been made known, we find their research turned up one primary candidate. The level of research was there, the candidate was interested, and the rest is history
--- the coaching search was more observably slow/patient/methodical. That resulted in some "misses" (depending on your perspective). However, in any market, assets become available and free at unrelated/unpredictable times. So for some, the patient approach is always the right approach, balanced against what happened with GM; when you feel like you know, you make your move. So, they weren't confident yet, and then Quinn became the guy. I still think there may have been too many voices in the room and it slowed the process (and some reporting suggests that), but it's an aspect of how this was structured.
- very diligent

All of these factors are almost the complete opposite of what we had before. Impatient, impulsive, very arrogant.

Don't get me wrong in my posts, I will continue to be very excited about Harris for a long time, but I am trying to really react unemotionally to what I can see and what I can read in the quotes and things that we do get exposure to, knowing of course that the conjecture factor will be present there. Even if something is organizationally or culturally less than ideal *right now* - the right structure matures and heals those issues too! All that takes is people willing to take feedback and criticism and the fostering of talent. I see plenty of evidence that those factors are present too.
 
I'm going to summarize ownership into the following categories:

- Category 1: Jerry Jones. I think he's in a category by himself, at least I can't think of another owner who openly has the title of Owner, President, GM. That's his official title on the Cowboys official site. He's in charge, and he makes no bones that he's the one picking the players, with help from others.
- Category 2: Openly involved in decision making. Jeffrey Lurie and John Mara are examples of this, each in an opposite direction. Both owners are extremely involved. Lurrie basically had Pederson and Sirianni interview for their jobs. Mara is clearly part of every key decision, and pushes his own agenda. He also runs through coaches at a rate which would make Dan Snyder proud. The bozo in Carolina would also fall into this category.
- Category 3: Informed and involved. They own and run the organization, get informed of football decisions, but they don't make direct football decisions except to hire the head of football ops/Head Coach.
- Category 4: Absentee Owner. This is the type of owner who basically hires people, and then doesn't really pay any attention. The head of football ops, whoever that is, basically has full autonomy, and if the record gets bad enough, the owner will do something. Maybe. The families which own the Chargers and Bengals might fall into this category. I don't know much about them at this point, but the family which owns the Bears might also fall into this category.

The category you want is category 3.

You don't wan the other three categories.

Snyder was category 2. You don't want that. In fact. I'd prefer a Category 1 over a Category 2. At least with a category 1, you know the deal.
 
I think you missed a category. Category 3b: Informed and Engaged. That's what you want - an owner that is educated, aware, and supportive, but one who is not 'involved' in football decisions.

Merriam-Webster defines 'involved' as actively participating in something. I don't want my owner participating in decision-making about football-related matters. Several of us have referenced the phenomenon where an owner's presence and involvement changes the dynamic. I would argue that no one has the exact same conversations and makes the exact same decisions with the guy who employs them sitting next to them. It's just human nature. Intent of the owner is irrelevant.

So I would argue 'engaged' = good, 'involved' = risky.
 
I think you missed a category. Category 3b: Informed and Engaged. That's what you want - an owner that is educated, aware, and supportive, but one who is not 'involved' in football decisions.

Merriam-Webster defines 'involved' as actively participating in something. I don't want my owner participating in decision-making about football-related matters. Several of us have referenced the phenomenon where an owner's presence and involvement changes the dynamic. I would argue that no one has the exact same conversations and makes the exact same decisions with the guy who employs them sitting next to them. It's just human nature. Intent of the owner is irrelevant.

So I would argue 'engaged' = good, 'involved' = risky.
Ok, fair. However, by definition, isn't the owner always involved because at the end of the day (it's night, but also) the head of football ops works for the owner, and it's the owner's responsibility to hire that person, and then if things aren't going well, remove and replace them?

I get the nuance. I am happy with "engaged" rather than "involved." But from a practical perspective, the owner is going to be consulted on any significant move. Large contract, significant trade, high draft pick, Head coach hiring, etc. The owner owns the team. They're going to at least need to be comfortable with the justification of the decisions. If they're not, then they need to evaluate whether they are comfortable with the executive they put in the position.

I understand literally everybody has Post Traumatic Dan Snyder Meddling Syndrome. I really do. But it's literally impossible for a good owner to just get informed, ask no questions, and go with the flow. That's bad also. Just in the opposite direction.

Look, if Peters comes to Harris and says, "I want to draft Penix at #2. Do I want Harris to say, "Absolutely not!" No way. But do I want him to ask Peters questions and make sure he's comfortable every stone was overturned, there was a sound process, all options were considered, and the reasoning for the pick is solid? Yes. That's the way good organizations operate. If Peters has all the answers, great. If not, then he has to go find them. If that changes his answer, well, that's something to keep in mind for down the road.

If that's engagement, that's fine. If that's involvement, that's fine too.
 
I think putting it on Snyder Meddling Syndrome belittles a legit concern a little. Owners sometimes stick their beak in things they probably shouldn't. It doesn't have to be at the gross level of a Snyder or Jerry Jones to be a potential negative.

I get your overall point. We can agree to disagree on where the line is. For me, Harris is more 'involved' than he is qualified to be (so far) and more than I personally prefer because he is determined to be a savior of this franchise and return us to glory. I know it comes from a good place. It may cause absolutely no harm. Or we may see instances where his influence is more apparent than it should be. Right now I'm not very worried about it, but it's something to keep an eye on.
 
I think putting it on Snyder Meddling Syndrome belittles a legit concern a little. Owners sometimes stick their beak in things they probably shouldn't. It doesn't have to be at the gross level of a Snyder or Jerry Jones to be a potential negative.

I get your overall point. We can agree to disagree on where the line is. For me, Harris is more 'involved' than he is qualified to be (so far) and more than I personally prefer because he is determined to be a savior of this franchise and return us to glory. I know it comes from a good place. It may cause absolutely no harm. Or we may see instances where his influence is more apparent than it should be. Right now I'm not very worried about it, but it's something to keep an eye on.
So I didn't mean to belittle the concern.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. I guess my overall thought is since Harris is ultimately responsible for the entire rebuilding of the organization from the bottom up, I think having him involved so he learns what's going on, the ins and outs of the NFL, so he gains experience and is able to steer the ship.

I understand the idea of even lesser involvement, but I like the level of involvement so far, and have no issues with it. Leadership starts at the top, and that's the owner. He's the only one which is going to ultimately be around long-term. I actually would prefer the owner sets the culture (and I know that's become a 4 letter word), and everybody fits into it, including the head of football ops. My preference only...
 
I should have said ‘minimize’ - nothing belittling in your take. It’s all good brother - you are making some fantastic posts! I just mean I think it goes beyond Snyder trauma. But again, until there’s a reason to hyperventilate, not going to
 
I should have said ‘minimize’ - nothing belittling in your take. It’s all good brother - you are making some fantastic posts! I just mean I think it goes beyond Snyder trauma. But again, until there’s a reason to hyperventilate, not going to
Oh, I don't know. Is there ever a bad time to overreact, hyperventilate and throw a tantrum?

My 5 year old did it this morning because I picked up his hot chocolate and moved it to the table and he wanted to do it himself.

I'm down for a good tantrum any time. :p
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top