Peter King FMIA: The Field Of Available GM's Is Going To Be Better Than The Field Of Available Coaches

[Milton Waddams]

Link

Sense I get from conversations with two veteran team executives over the weekend: The field of general managers is better than the field of coaches. “The GM list is very impressive—very impressive,” one said. “Coaches are okay. But I won’t be surprised to see a team on the fence with their current guy willing to get rid of him because of the crop of candidates out there.” Rick Smith (ex of Houston), ESPN’s Louis Riddick (lost out to Dave Gettleman with Giants), riser Champ Kelly, Indy’s Ed Dodds and Will McClay of Dallas are all strong, and there’s a pool of six or eight more that some teams are investigating.

Also:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1332838254631030784

 

[Hawkeye OG]

I like Louis Riddick, Ed Dodds and Mike Borgonzi in that order.

 

[Sparks500]

Will the McCaskeys still own the team?
then NOTHING will change.
THIS, is the team they want.....

 

[Zion]

This is not an attractive destination for either GM or HC candidates.

 

[ILoveDick]

Do we really want a GM from Houston or Dallas?

 

[rawdawg]

I really like the idea of an experienced GM. The Bears have hired several young, unknowns that have moved up the ranks in a winning organization (Pace). And none of them have worked out all that great. The idea of hiring someone that has actually run a winning team before sounds better than an unknown. I do like Dodds and Borgonzi (and Riddick), but a guy like Rick Smith who helped been that Texans team (drafted Watt, Watson, etc.) might make more sense.

 

[ILoveDick]

I really like the idea of an experienced GM. The Bears have hired several young, unknowns that have moved up the ranks in a winning organization (Pace). And none of them have worked out all that great. The idea of hiring someone that has actually run a winning team before sounds better than an unknown. I do like Dodds and Borgonzi (and Riddick), but a guy like Rick Smith who helped been that Texans team (drafted Watt, Watson, etc.) might make more sense.

I hear what you're saying...

But if we don't immediately start winning the "old GM who's outta touch with the current NFL..." complaints start.

lol...you cannot win.

 

[rawdawg]

There is no such thing as an unattractive coaching or GM job. I'm tired of people saying this. There are 32 jobs of each in the entire world at the highest level. If the Cleveland Browns can get a new GM every year in that mess of an organization, the Bears should have no problem getting one of the top 3-4 candidates. Hell, Washington was just able to get a very well respected and veteran coach last offseason while dealing with sexual harassment allegations throughout the organization and not actually having a team name. And their owner is known for being a complete idiot. Getting a good GM and head coach will NOT be an issue for the Bears. The issue will be them actually picking the right guys.

 

[rawdawg]

I hear what you're saying...

But if we don't immediately start winning the "old GM who's outta touch with the current NFL..." complaints start.

lol...you cannot win.

I mean, it would likely be a guy who's only been out of the league 3-4 years at most like Rick Smith. And he wasn't really fired, he left because his wife had cancer. But yeah, there will be complains with anyone who doesn't start winning immediately. At least in this case, it would be a guy who has done it well before. It's kinda like the Foles move. Foles was crap which let us know it wasn't Mitch, it was Nagy as the bigger issue. If a previously successful GM fails, then maybe it's not the GM, it's the president or ownership.

 

[Luke]

I really like the idea of an experienced GM. The Bears have hired several young, unknowns that have moved up the ranks in a winning organization (Pace). And none of them have worked out all that great. The idea of hiring someone that has actually run a winning team before sounds better than an unknown. I do like Dodds and Borgonzi (and Riddick), but a guy like Rick Smith who helped been that Texans team (drafted Watt, Watson, etc.) might make more sense.

This! Give me Smith all day long (former GM).
Aside from the forced upon aging Fox, when was the last time the Bears hired an experience person at either of the GM/HC position and how has it worked out?

 

[kerschbs]

I like the sound of Ed Dobbs and Brian Daboll.

 

[Mikeropod]

Anyone that comes from the Ozzie Newsome tree is fine with me, the Ravens have had some up and down years, but overall have been exceptionally competitive since the early 00's.

 

[Anytime23]

Weird, the person i want the most to be GM in that tweet is the person who sent it.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

What does Ernie think?

 

[Zion]

There is no such thing as an unattractive coaching or GM job. I'm tired of people saying this. There are 32 jobs of each in the entire world at the highest level. If the Cleveland Browns can get a new GM every year in that mess of an organization, the Bears should have no problem getting one of the top 3-4 candidates. Hell, Washington was just able to get a very well respected and veteran coach last offseason while dealing with sexual harassment allegations throughout the organization and not actually having a team name. And their owner is known for being a complete idiot. Getting a good GM and head coach will NOT be an issue for the Bears. The issue will be them actually picking the right guys.

I don't agree. New hires will be concerned with long term job security. A team with an established QB under center is far more attractive than a team without one. Would a GM/HC candidate rather go to a team that has Deshaun Watson under center or a team without a QB?

I do think roster construction plays a large factor. Our team has no QB and our roster is a bit tied up for the next few years with expensive contracts and a lack of picks.

There's no question the Bears will be able to get one of the top 3-4 candidates. But will we get our first pick or our 4th pick of the litter? That's the question.

 

[dennehy]

What teams are hiring GMs this year?

Detroit, Atlanta, HOU, NYJ, JAX?

 

[rawdawg]

I don't agree. New hires will be concerned with long term job security. A team with an established QB under center is far more attractive than a team without one. Would a GM/HC candidate rather go to a team that has Deshaun Watson under center or a team without a QB?

I do think roster construction plays a large factor. Our team has no QB and our roster is a bit tied up for the next few years with expensive contracts and a lack of picks.

There's no question the Bears will be able to get one of the top 3-4 candidates. But will we get our first pick or our 4th pick of the litter? That's the question.

I get what you're saying. And i could argue that being able to draft a QB (Bears) and build a team around a QB on a rookie deal could be more attractive than having a QB being paid 35Mil (Texans) and trying to build a team around him (their defense, OL, and weapons suck if they don't re-sign Fuller). Texans have similar cap issues as the Bears (though they have a bunch of players than can easily cut), but no draft picks.

And if you get your 4th choice instead of your 1st, that's not a big deal if you have identified 4 good candidates. If the guy works out, nobody will care if he was the top or 4th choice. If they get their first choice, it could still fail like Pace. There's really no excuse to not get a good GM and a good HC.

 

[ThatGuyRyan]

What does Ernie think?

He's too busy fapping