View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 23rd, 2014, 5:50 am



Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 What makes a good GM? 
Author Message
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
rao wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
So let me ask this in response because after last year the error was quite obvious.

2012 Detroit Lions didn't have any heart! They didn't play like it, and even though the words were there, the fire wasn't. How do you "re-acquire the fire"?

I think Suh's on field issues were more than a distraction, they gave Detroit a dirty football label and other teams ran with it. They focused on him, and did what they could to perpetuate that.

Off season issues with alcohol and marijuana showed a total lack of personal character and immaturity on the part of those involved. In my opinion team leadership needed to pull these guys in a closet and "dress em up". We did it in the service and it works quite well! It's a way of motivating people to do the right thing, in absence of their own personal abilities.

The team lacked VISION. A vision is a goal, and playoffs are not a goal, although they were in 2011. Teams with a goal have an "end in sight" and something to work towards. We didn't have that, and living off of last years success got us a 4-12 rating.

I really appreciated what the 2012 Wolverines did by visiting San Diego and training with the SEALS for a little while. It gave them an opportunity to see how REAL PROFESSIONALS train, and it really taught the TEAM mentality. In a world where everyone's a millionaire, TEAM FOCUS should be the ONLY focus.

Thoughts?


How you get "fire" back is to hold people accountable, spread the ball, reward good play, make good decisions, and field a real team with the capability of being competitive EVERY SUNDAY.

There are at least 6 games this year, maybe 7, that I feel like we have no chance whatsoever to win. I'm sure the players see it too, and I'm sure its disheartening.

The "board" screamed at my when I wanted to cut Nate, despite his decline in play. The board said that cutting Nate would "dishearten" the "locker room" cause we parted way with a Vet. I couldn't disagree more. IMO the exact opposite is true. When we hold back talent over a vet, it reduces the incentive to produce. After all, if it takes another player getting injured to get you on the field, and not your good play, it doesn't provide much incentive to play well.


Everyone screamed at you because very few people agreed that Nate declined in play. His stats were pretty consistent between his 2 years and he added leadership. They never held anyone back because of Nate.


You know we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. IMO Titus should have been given the #2 virtually immediately, due to his big-play ability, the fact that he was our only other true deep threat, and his ability to open up the offense.

I don't care if he was "promoted" over Nate on the depth chart, but he's the one that should have been lining up opposite CJ wideout, virtually from day 1.


April 29th, 2013, 4:41 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1386
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
So let me ask this in response because after last year the error was quite obvious.

2012 Detroit Lions didn't have any heart! They didn't play like it, and even though the words were there, the fire wasn't. How do you "re-acquire the fire"?

I think Suh's on field issues were more than a distraction, they gave Detroit a dirty football label and other teams ran with it. They focused on him, and did what they could to perpetuate that.

Off season issues with alcohol and marijuana showed a total lack of personal character and immaturity on the part of those involved. In my opinion team leadership needed to pull these guys in a closet and "dress em up". We did it in the service and it works quite well! It's a way of motivating people to do the right thing, in absence of their own personal abilities.

The team lacked VISION. A vision is a goal, and playoffs are not a goal, although they were in 2011. Teams with a goal have an "end in sight" and something to work towards. We didn't have that, and living off of last years success got us a 4-12 rating.

I really appreciated what the 2012 Wolverines did by visiting San Diego and training with the SEALS for a little while. It gave them an opportunity to see how REAL PROFESSIONALS train, and it really taught the TEAM mentality. In a world where everyone's a millionaire, TEAM FOCUS should be the ONLY focus.

Thoughts?


How you get "fire" back is to hold people accountable, spread the ball, reward good play, make good decisions, and field a real team with the capability of being competitive EVERY SUNDAY.

There are at least 6 games this year, maybe 7, that I feel like we have no chance whatsoever to win. I'm sure the players see it too, and I'm sure its disheartening.

The "board" screamed at my when I wanted to cut Nate, despite his decline in play. The board said that cutting Nate would "dishearten" the "locker room" cause we parted way with a Vet. I couldn't disagree more. IMO the exact opposite is true. When we hold back talent over a vet, it reduces the incentive to produce. After all, if it takes another player getting injured to get you on the field, and not your good play, it doesn't provide much incentive to play well.


Everyone screamed at you because very few people agreed that Nate declined in play. His stats were pretty consistent between his 2 years and he added leadership. They never held anyone back because of Nate.


You know we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. IMO Titus should have been given the #2 virtually immediately, due to his big-play ability, the fact that he was our only other true deep threat, and his ability to open up the offense.

I don't care if he was "promoted" over Nate on the depth chart, but he's the one that should have been lining up opposite CJ wideout, virtually from day 1.


Titus was the guy opposite CJ, Nate played the short game for the Lions that year. Titus wasn't a good route runner and poor after the catch, so he took the deep routes as the 3rd receiver. The Lions played a ton of 3 WR sets and only reason Nate had more targets was because he had the underneath routes.

Your argument has just never jived with anything I ever saw, but yeah we will have to just again agree to disagree.


April 29th, 2013, 4:59 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
WJB: I'm actually one of those who disagreed with you because Nate is a TEAM guy. From day 1 of his arrival he was very focused on being the best he could be. How many times did he come in after a game and talk about how good Calvin was, on live camera?

From reports that I heard and read about, he was notorious for being a leader in the locker room, doing all he could to make the team better. Comparing stats production he was pretty consistent. Barn burner? Maybe not, but solid in the catch and production. In fact, I would think that his hands were more sure than Pettigrew's.

Is he old? Yes by today's NFL standards, but that experience helps him and the team, especially since he's so willing to use it to help those around him. Now compare him to T.O. or Ochocinco and you don't see the same personality.

Not to turn this into a Nate Debate, I just don't think your argument holds water. He's done what he's been asked and more, plus produced.

As far as a GM is concerned, then is it feasible to look outside of the football family for leadership? Let's take the General who was CIA director till he made a mistake. The man can lead, is a known leader, and can get a team focused on a goal. Before you blow a vessel let me remind you of a quote from General Eisenhauer (I think it was): "As a leader, I don't need to know everything, but I'd better have people under me who do." Someone with command leadership would be an excellent choice for getting a team focused, and as long as he is surrounded by competent football knowledge, I think it could work. Anyone else think the idea has merit or did I spend too much time in the sun today?

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


April 29th, 2013, 5:03 pm
Profile
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
WJB: I'm actually one of those who disagreed with you because Nate is a TEAM guy. From day 1 of his arrival he was very focused on being the best he could be. How many times did he come in after a game and talk about how good Calvin was, on live camera?

From reports that I heard and read about, he was notorious for being a leader in the locker room, doing all he could to make the team better. Comparing stats production he was pretty consistent. Barn burner? Maybe not, but solid in the catch and production. In fact, I would think that his hands were more sure than Pettigrew's.

Is he old? Yes by today's NFL standards, but that experience helps him and the team, especially since he's so willing to use it to help those around him. Now compare him to T.O. or Ochocinco and you don't see the same personality.

Not to turn this into a Nate Debate, I just don't think your argument holds water. He's done what he's been asked and more, plus produced.

As far as a GM is concerned, then is it feasible to look outside of the football family for leadership? Let's take the General who was CIA director till he made a mistake. The man can lead, is a known leader, and can get a team focused on a goal. Before you blow a vessel let me remind you of a quote from General Eisenhauer (I think it was): "As a leader, I don't need to know everything, but I'd better have people under me who do." Someone with command leadership would be an excellent choice for getting a team focused, and as long as he is surrounded by competent football knowledge, I think it could work. Anyone else think the idea has merit or did I spend too much time in the sun today?


IMO allowing Nate to drop ball after ball, push off to get open, etc., Dom to suck in the middle, Pett to drop ball after ball, etc. takes heart away from players. Cutting some guy does not. It keeps people on their toes, it forces people to do their damn job. It provides consequences for their actions.

You cannot reward the type of play Nate was trotting out there, even if he is a "good guy," and a "leader."


April 29th, 2013, 5:06 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1386
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
WJB: I'm actually one of those who disagreed with you because Nate is a TEAM guy. From day 1 of his arrival he was very focused on being the best he could be. How many times did he come in after a game and talk about how good Calvin was, on live camera?

From reports that I heard and read about, he was notorious for being a leader in the locker room, doing all he could to make the team better. Comparing stats production he was pretty consistent. Barn burner? Maybe not, but solid in the catch and production. In fact, I would think that his hands were more sure than Pettigrew's.

Is he old? Yes by today's NFL standards, but that experience helps him and the team, especially since he's so willing to use it to help those around him. Now compare him to T.O. or Ochocinco and you don't see the same personality.

Not to turn this into a Nate Debate, I just don't think your argument holds water. He's done what he's been asked and more, plus produced.

As far as a GM is concerned, then is it feasible to look outside of the football family for leadership? Let's take the General who was CIA director till he made a mistake. The man can lead, is a known leader, and can get a team focused on a goal. Before you blow a vessel let me remind you of a quote from General Eisenhauer (I think it was): "As a leader, I don't need to know everything, but I'd better have people under me who do." Someone with command leadership would be an excellent choice for getting a team focused, and as long as he is surrounded by competent football knowledge, I think it could work. Anyone else think the idea has merit or did I spend too much time in the sun today?


IMO allowing Nate to drop ball after ball, push off to get open, etc., Dom to suck in the middle, Pett to drop ball after ball, etc. takes heart away from players. Cutting some guy does not. It keeps people on their toes, it forces people to do their damn job. It provides consequences for their actions.

You cannot reward the type of play Nate was trotting out there, even if he is a "good guy," and a "leader."


Nate caught more of his targets than Titus. I don't know what their drops were in 2011, so I can't be totally accurate on who had more catchable targets. They had no one to replace Dom and Pett also caught more of his targets than Titus. If anyone has their drop numbers from 2011 I would love to see them. I don't think this drop issue is as huge as people think especially because they throw more than most other teams.


April 29th, 2013, 5:34 pm
Profile
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
rao wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
WJB: I'm actually one of those who disagreed with you because Nate is a TEAM guy. From day 1 of his arrival he was very focused on being the best he could be. How many times did he come in after a game and talk about how good Calvin was, on live camera?

From reports that I heard and read about, he was notorious for being a leader in the locker room, doing all he could to make the team better. Comparing stats production he was pretty consistent. Barn burner? Maybe not, but solid in the catch and production. In fact, I would think that his hands were more sure than Pettigrew's.

Is he old? Yes by today's NFL standards, but that experience helps him and the team, especially since he's so willing to use it to help those around him. Now compare him to T.O. or Ochocinco and you don't see the same personality.

Not to turn this into a Nate Debate, I just don't think your argument holds water. He's done what he's been asked and more, plus produced.

As far as a GM is concerned, then is it feasible to look outside of the football family for leadership? Let's take the General who was CIA director till he made a mistake. The man can lead, is a known leader, and can get a team focused on a goal. Before you blow a vessel let me remind you of a quote from General Eisenhauer (I think it was): "As a leader, I don't need to know everything, but I'd better have people under me who do." Someone with command leadership would be an excellent choice for getting a team focused, and as long as he is surrounded by competent football knowledge, I think it could work. Anyone else think the idea has merit or did I spend too much time in the sun today?


IMO allowing Nate to drop ball after ball, push off to get open, etc., Dom to suck in the middle, Pett to drop ball after ball, etc. takes heart away from players. Cutting some guy does not. It keeps people on their toes, it forces people to do their damn job. It provides consequences for their actions.

You cannot reward the type of play Nate was trotting out there, even if he is a "good guy," and a "leader."


Nate caught more of his targets than Titus. I don't know what their drops were in 2011, so I can't be totally accurate on who had more catchable targets. They had no one to replace Dom and Pett also caught more of his targets than Titus. If anyone has their drop numbers from 2011 I would love to see them. I don't think this drop issue is as huge as people think especially because they throw more than most other teams.


We didn't have anyone on the roster to replace Dom due to inept management. We drafted Pett over Alex Mack, and the rest is history... That's a decision that cost this organization over $20 million dollars and a pro-bowl caliber OC, and gave us a horribly unreliable TE that's going to demand too much money.

Of course Nate is going to catch more targets than Titus, Nates passes are these stupid 5 yard out routes. Nate also dropped less too, but like I said, it's not tough to catch these little 5 yard bloopers, yet Nate STILL found a way to manage to drop a decent number of them.


April 29th, 2013, 5:36 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1386
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
WJB: I'm actually one of those who disagreed with you because Nate is a TEAM guy. From day 1 of his arrival he was very focused on being the best he could be. How many times did he come in after a game and talk about how good Calvin was, on live camera?

From reports that I heard and read about, he was notorious for being a leader in the locker room, doing all he could to make the team better. Comparing stats production he was pretty consistent. Barn burner? Maybe not, but solid in the catch and production. In fact, I would think that his hands were more sure than Pettigrew's.

Is he old? Yes by today's NFL standards, but that experience helps him and the team, especially since he's so willing to use it to help those around him. Now compare him to T.O. or Ochocinco and you don't see the same personality.

Not to turn this into a Nate Debate, I just don't think your argument holds water. He's done what he's been asked and more, plus produced.

As far as a GM is concerned, then is it feasible to look outside of the football family for leadership? Let's take the General who was CIA director till he made a mistake. The man can lead, is a known leader, and can get a team focused on a goal. Before you blow a vessel let me remind you of a quote from General Eisenhauer (I think it was): "As a leader, I don't need to know everything, but I'd better have people under me who do." Someone with command leadership would be an excellent choice for getting a team focused, and as long as he is surrounded by competent football knowledge, I think it could work. Anyone else think the idea has merit or did I spend too much time in the sun today?


IMO allowing Nate to drop ball after ball, push off to get open, etc., Dom to suck in the middle, Pett to drop ball after ball, etc. takes heart away from players. Cutting some guy does not. It keeps people on their toes, it forces people to do their damn job. It provides consequences for their actions.

You cannot reward the type of play Nate was trotting out there, even if he is a "good guy," and a "leader."


Nate caught more of his targets than Titus. I don't know what their drops were in 2011, so I can't be totally accurate on who had more catchable targets. They had no one to replace Dom and Pett also caught more of his targets than Titus. If anyone has their drop numbers from 2011 I would love to see them. I don't think this drop issue is as huge as people think especially because they throw more than most other teams.


We didn't have anyone on the roster to replace Dom due to inept management. We drafted Pett over Alex Mack, and the rest is history... That's a decision that cost this organization over $20 million dollars and a pro-bowl caliber OC, and gave us a horribly unreliable TE that's going to demand too much money.

Of course Nate is going to catch more targets than Titus, Nates passes are these stupid 5 yard out routes. Nate also dropped less too, but like I said, it's not tough to catch these little 5 yard bloopers, yet Nate STILL found a way to manage to drop a decent number of them.


No one was arguing in this thread that the Lions didn't make major mistakes in who they drafted. It's irrelevant to the conversation.

Nate handled all those stupid out routes and little bloopers because he got YAC with them. He knows how to run routes and yes he knows how to push off like any good vet would. Titus wasn't a good route runner and he got little YAC on any of his receptions. Linehan played them to their strengths and it worked.

You said the Lions held back a better player for a declining player and you still have never given good evidence that it ever happened. Also you said that the teams drops hurt the team morale and they should have been cut for it, but the player you said was better showed even less focus. I don't see how gutting your whole starting group receivers except CJ wouldn't be even more disheartening to the team than a few drops over the course of the season.


April 29th, 2013, 6:28 pm
Profile
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
YAC my foot... Nate averaged 3.2 yards after the catch last season... WOW... I'm blown away... Look at all those yards he's "racking up." Broyles, yes, Nate, hell no. Nate is flat out garbage. He cheats to get open, picks up offensive PI calls, and drops way too many balls to be a "possession" WR, not to mention that he made more than DOUBLE what he was worth while doing it. He should have been gone after his second season here.

I don't give a damn about Titus, he should have been replaced. HE COULDN'T DO THE JOB WE BROUGHT HIM HERE TO DO, which was to take pressure off of CJ.


April 29th, 2013, 6:45 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1386
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
YAC my foot... Nate averaged 3.2 yards after the catch last season... WOW... I'm blown away... Look at all those yards he's "racking up." Broyles, yes, Nate, hell no. Nate is flat out garbage. He cheats to get open, picks up offensive PI calls, and drops way too many balls to be a "possession" WR, not to mention that he made more than DOUBLE what he was worth while doing it. He should have been gone after his second season here.

I don't give a damn about Titus, he should have been replaced. HE COULDN'T DO THE JOB WE BROUGHT HIM HERE TO DO, which was to take pressure off of CJ.


Nice try. Stop using last season he got injured for most of it. The only WR to play the whole season last year was CJ. Nate had 5.3 and 5.5 averages for 2010 and 2011 his 2 healthy seasons. He even had better YAC than CJ in both those years.

If you want to show me the penalty yards and drop numbers I'll listen. Otherwise this is just you guessing or going off memory which no offense but I don't trust you to be impartial in your memory of how things went each game.


April 29th, 2013, 7:05 pm
Profile
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
rao wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
YAC my foot... Nate averaged 3.2 yards after the catch last season... WOW... I'm blown away... Look at all those yards he's "racking up." Broyles, yes, Nate, hell no. Nate is flat out garbage. He cheats to get open, picks up offensive PI calls, and drops way too many balls to be a "possession" WR, not to mention that he made more than DOUBLE what he was worth while doing it. He should have been gone after his second season here.

I don't give a damn about Titus, he should have been replaced. HE COULDN'T DO THE JOB WE BROUGHT HIM HERE TO DO, which was to take pressure off of CJ.


Nice try. Stop using last season he got injured for most of it. The only WR to play the whole season last year was CJ. Nate had 5.3 and 5.5 averages for 2010 and 2011 his 2 healthy seasons. He even had better YAC than CJ in both those years.

If you want to show me the penalty yards and drop numbers I'll listen. Otherwise this is just you guessing or going off memory which no offense but I don't trust you to be impartial in your memory of how things went each game.


It's this crap that he was doing all season, yet only getting called for it here and there that's part of it:
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/20 ... _ra_1.html

Just shows that he's washed up, slow, and needs to cheat to get the job done.

Nate has NEVER done the job that we brought him in to do, period, NEVER. He was brought in to be an "eraser" according to Jim Schwartz, that is, to "take a safety off of CJ" and "open up our offense. He's never done that, not from year one. Further, he's been over paid, by at least double, for the type of WR he is, and the production he puts out. Players see that, and it kills an organization. That's where you get this "we're screwed up, but at least I'm going to get paid," "me first" type of attitude.

Cutting players like that will not hurt the locker-room, regardless as to how "nice" that guy happens to be.


April 29th, 2013, 9:38 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1386
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
YAC my foot... Nate averaged 3.2 yards after the catch last season... WOW... I'm blown away... Look at all those yards he's "racking up." Broyles, yes, Nate, hell no. Nate is flat out garbage. He cheats to get open, picks up offensive PI calls, and drops way too many balls to be a "possession" WR, not to mention that he made more than DOUBLE what he was worth while doing it. He should have been gone after his second season here.

I don't give a damn about Titus, he should have been replaced. HE COULDN'T DO THE JOB WE BROUGHT HIM HERE TO DO, which was to take pressure off of CJ.


Nice try. Stop using last season he got injured for most of it. The only WR to play the whole season last year was CJ. Nate had 5.3 and 5.5 averages for 2010 and 2011 his 2 healthy seasons. He even had better YAC than CJ in both those years.

If you want to show me the penalty yards and drop numbers I'll listen. Otherwise this is just you guessing or going off memory which no offense but I don't trust you to be impartial in your memory of how things went each game.


It's this crap that he was doing all season, yet only getting called for it here and there that's part of it:
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/20 ... _ra_1.html

Just shows that he's washed up, slow, and needs to cheat to get the job done.

Nate has NEVER done the job that we brought him in to do, period, NEVER. He was brought in to be an "eraser" according to Jim Schwartz, that is, to "take a safety off of CJ" and "open up our offense. He's never done that, not from year one. Further, he's been over paid, by at least double, for the type of WR he is, and the production he puts out. Players see that, and it kills an organization. That's where you get this "we're screwed up, but at least I'm going to get paid," "me first" type of attitude.

Cutting players like that will not hurt the locker-room, regardless as to how "nice" that guy happens to be.


That game was bad, but Raiola wasn't even talking about Nate, he was pissed about the personal foul calls. He even said that people need to control their emotions which has nothing to do with pass interference calls. It's also so funny to see Raiola tell other people to control their emotions.

It was a bad game and Nate did hurt the team but he was also their best WR that game. I can show you a game where Manning threw 6 INTs it doesn't mean it happens every game.

All this stuff about Nate's contract causing friction or resentment is all made up. There isn't a single article or rumor anywhere ever that could even back you up. You think Nate is a bad player, so you invent reasons he has to go. Nate has always has positive things said about his work ethic and team first attitude. You can say it's just players not wanting to say something bad, but if that were true they wouldn't bring him up at all.

It's true he didn't become what they wanted when they signed him, but he still has managed to stay productive getting YAC and first downs for the team. He's not the problem in the locker room, if anything he's probably one of the few bright spots in their locker room.


April 29th, 2013, 11:18 pm
Profile
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
rao wrote:
That game was bad, but Raiola wasn't even talking about Nate, he was pissed about the personal foul calls. He even said that people need to control their emotions which has nothing to do with pass interference calls. It's also so funny to see Raiola tell other people to control their emotions.

It was a bad game and Nate did hurt the team but he was also their best WR that game. I can show you a game where Manning threw 6 INTs it doesn't mean it happens every game.

All this stuff about Nate's contract causing friction or resentment is all made up. There isn't a single article or rumor anywhere ever that could even back you up. You think Nate is a bad player, so you invent reasons he has to go. Nate has always has positive things said about his work ethic and team first attitude. You can say it's just players not wanting to say something bad, but if that were true they wouldn't bring him up at all.

It's true he didn't become what they wanted when they signed him, but he still has managed to stay productive getting YAC and first downs for the team. He's not the problem in the locker room, if anything he's probably one of the few bright spots in their locker room.


I wasn't referring to Doms comments, just Nates performance in general. I don't see how you can say he was the best WR for us that game, when he killed two drives for us with dumb penalties, and was part of the team's unraveling.

I never said that Nates contract causes nor caused resentment. What it does do is proves to our teammates that you don't have to produce to get paid here. It proves that you don't have to live up to your billing, and it proves that even if you don't fit the bill, we're going to continue to play you where you don't belong for sake of "not wanting to disrupt a proven vet."

THOSE things kill fire in a team, and THOSE things effect team morale, whether it comes out in verbal form or on the field issues. Dom was the same way... He didn't fill his billing, didn't deserve his contract, but he "got paid" anyhow. What one person is getting from the team in terms of money, the rest of the team can't get. It effects everything. Like I said, not drafting Kontz was a $6.5 million dollar decision, not drafting Alex Mack was a $20 million dollar decision... That mismanagement is HUGE and if nothing else the players see that the team isn't being managed well. Nate B was making $3M more than he should have been, that's another $6M... How would that $26 mill look off of Staff's salary or Suh's salary?

That's why there's no "fire" on this team, that's why people don't "care." If the FO doesn't care, if the ownership doesn't care that the FO either "doesn't care" or is "incapable," why should they? That stuff trickles down, and you see it in the poor play every Sunday. That's why players come here and get worse, that's why we foster crap, that's why fundamentals fall apart in Detroit. Ineptitude starts at the top and works its way down.


April 29th, 2013, 11:27 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1386
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
That game was bad, but Raiola wasn't even talking about Nate, he was pissed about the personal foul calls. He even said that people need to control their emotions which has nothing to do with pass interference calls. It's also so funny to see Raiola tell other people to control their emotions.

It was a bad game and Nate did hurt the team but he was also their best WR that game. I can show you a game where Manning threw 6 INTs it doesn't mean it happens every game.

All this stuff about Nate's contract causing friction or resentment is all made up. There isn't a single article or rumor anywhere ever that could even back you up. You think Nate is a bad player, so you invent reasons he has to go. Nate has always has positive things said about his work ethic and team first attitude. You can say it's just players not wanting to say something bad, but if that were true they wouldn't bring him up at all.

It's true he didn't become what they wanted when they signed him, but he still has managed to stay productive getting YAC and first downs for the team. He's not the problem in the locker room, if anything he's probably one of the few bright spots in their locker room.


I wasn't referring to Doms comments, just Nates performance in general. I don't see how you can say he was the best WR for us that game, when he killed two drives for us with dumb penalties, and was part of the team's unraveling.

I never said that Nates contract causes nor caused resentment. What it does do is proves to our teammates that you don't have to produce to get paid here. It proves that you don't have to live up to your billing, and it proves that even if you don't fit the bill, we're going to continue to play you where you don't belong for sake of "not wanting to disrupt a proven vet."

THOSE things kill fire in a team, and THOSE things effect team morale, whether it comes out in verbal form or on the field issues. Dom was the same way... He didn't fill his billing, didn't deserve his contract, but he "got paid" anyhow. What one person is getting from the team in terms of money, the rest of the team can't get. It effects everything. Like I said, not drafting Kontz was a $6.5 million dollar decision, not drafting Alex Mack was a $20 million dollar decision... That mismanagement is HUGE and if nothing else the players see that the team isn't being managed well. Nate B was making $3M more than he should have been, that's another $6M... How would that $26 mill look off of Staff's salary or Suh's salary?

That's why there's no "fire" on this team, that's why people don't "care." If the FO doesn't care, if the ownership doesn't care that the FO either "doesn't care" or is "incapable," why should they? That stuff trickles down, and you see it in the poor play every Sunday. That's why players come here and get worse, that's why we foster crap, that's why fundamentals fall apart in Detroit. Ineptitude starts at the top and works its way down.


Nate is one of the hardest working players on the team and the more consistent of all the secondary receivers. What kills the fire of the team is a coach who asks player to control themselves, but can't control himself. Or how about a $60M DT who likes to assault other players on the field and gets defended by his coach every time it happens. Maybe a RB that didn't care enough about his rehab that he decided to get baked and caught twice with the damn drugs. Perhaps it's that two of their top players and high draft picks have spent more time on the trainers table than they ever have playing with the team. Could it have been a 2nd round WR who thinks with one season he's better than the guy who broke Jerry Rice's record. Nate's contract is the least of the things that killed the fire in this team.


April 29th, 2013, 11:50 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3694
Location: WSU
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
rao wrote:

Quote:
Nate is one of the hardest working players on the team and the more consistent of all the secondary receivers. What kills the fire of the team is a coach who asks player to control themselves, but can't control himself. Or how about a $60M DT who likes to assault other players on the field and gets defended by his coach every time it happens. Maybe a RB that didn't care enough about his rehab that he decided to get baked and caught twice with the damn drugs. Perhaps it's that two of their top players and high draft picks have spent more time on the trainers table than they ever have playing with the team. Could it have been a 2nd round WR who thinks with one season he's better than the guy who broke Jerry Rice's record. Nate's contract is the least of the things that killed the fire in this team.


Its funny you are making this argument about suh, leshoure, etc. you are referring to the same organization/culture problem of enabling that wjb and I were complaining about in the Ronnell Lewis thread but just choosing when to be on which side of the argument. i agree with you that nate isnt the biggest problem on the team but we still badly need a No 2 WR and its not Nate so there is some prudence to what wjb is saying here (except anytime he defends titus young) at least as it relates to burleson and his salary cap charge


May 1st, 2013, 1:49 am
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1386
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: What makes a good GM?
The Legend wrote:
rao wrote:

Quote:
Nate is one of the hardest working players on the team and the more consistent of all the secondary receivers. What kills the fire of the team is a coach who asks player to control themselves, but can't control himself. Or how about a $60M DT who likes to assault other players on the field and gets defended by his coach every time it happens. Maybe a RB that didn't care enough about his rehab that he decided to get baked and caught twice with the damn drugs. Perhaps it's that two of their top players and high draft picks have spent more time on the trainers table than they ever have playing with the team. Could it have been a 2nd round WR who thinks with one season he's better than the guy who broke Jerry Rice's record. Nate's contract is the least of the things that killed the fire in this team.


Its funny you are making this argument about suh, leshoure, etc. you are referring to the same organization/culture problem of enabling that wjb and I were complaining about in the Ronnell Lewis thread but just choosing when to be on which side of the argument. i agree with you that nate isnt the biggest problem on the team but we still badly need a No 2 WR and its not Nate so there is some prudence to what wjb is saying here (except anytime he defends titus young) at least as it relates to burleson and his salary cap charge


I think Suh's on field issues are a coaching problem, all the rest is a personnel issue. I still don't think the coaching staff could do much to stop the off-field problems from happening for the first time. IMO Leshoure should have been cut when he got grabbed the second time and Lewis should automatically be put in anger management classes. I think a coaching staff can do things to stop a players from making the mistake a second time, but the first time is all on the players poor judgement and I still feel they should be given a chance to learn from it. And just so I'm clear I think the cutting of players for off field issues and sending players into programs for said issues is all Mayhews responsibility. The coaches can't be impartial enough when that player has talent.

The problem I have with you and WJB is you seem think that just dropping the axe will start scaring people straight, but I don't see it that way. At this point that message is already lost, if they did it when they first arrived it would have made a mark, now it would just look like they are trying to find a scapegoat. The other problem is if you can't help your players on your roster from making a second mistake, how can you help a guy like Da'rick Rodgers or Bacarri Rambo? You have no support system, so you can't help them. All you do is cut them when they screw up and lose a chance to use their talent. If you don't cut them you look unbalanced and your whole hard rectum stance falls apart.

I do agree Burelson's contract could be an issue, but only on a more stable team. They have so many other issues and Burelson is looked on favorably by so many in the locker room I don't think anyone even notices his contract. It's also hidden in the shadow of Suh's stupid deal.


May 1st, 2013, 10:15 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.