notthatbluestuff Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) And what criteria do you use to make that assessment? How do you separate Veach's work from the fact that he has Reid and Mahomes - and how do you compare Veach to guys like Lynch, Roseman, DeCosta, even Gutekunst? Edited March 13 by notthatbluestuff 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonserinNC Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 I may be biased but Im gonna say Ryan Poles....rolling over a #1 overall pick for another #1 overall pick was crazy lucky, but he still pulled it off. While also having a ton of cap space, AND putting himself in a position where he can pretty much do ANYTHING in the draft. I dont think Ive seen a GM make moves like this EVER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xmad Posted March 13 Popular Post Share Posted March 13 Just now, MonserinNC said: I may be biased but Im gonna say Ryan Poles....rolling over a #1 overall pick for another #1 overall pick was crazy lucky, but he still pulled it off. While also having a ton of cap space, AND putting himself in a position where he can pretty much do ANYTHING in the draft. I dont think Ive seen a GM make moves like this EVER. How many winning seasons he got? 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 I think this is one of the hardest things to judge, as fans. I think most GMs really just get judged on hit rate as far as talent acquisition goes. So just a basic, how many of their free agent acquisitions pan out, how many of the players they draft pan out. But I think, especially with the draft, there's a very difficult nature versus nurture style question of if it's really about teams drafting well or poorly, or if it's about teams developing talent well or poorly. And I really don't know how we would distinguish that, as fans. Like, KC has been a DB factory in recent years. We've hit on bigger free agent signings (Mathieu, Reid), we've hit on discount free agent signings (Edwards, Ward), we've hit on high draft picks (Cook, McDuffie), we've hit on low draft picks (Sneed, Watson.) But is this Veach having some secret knowledge on evaluating DBs, or is the coaching staff just better than most of the league at teaching players how to play DB? Maybe some of both? The Packers drafted 6 WRs the last 2 years, and 4 of them appear to be at least some level of hits. Is that Gute? Or are they just fantastic at properly utilizing and developing WRs? Hard to say. The Ravens and 49ers always seem loaded. The Steelers never lack for talent on defense or at WR. The Rams dump half their noteworthy players and find a new set of stars under a rock. Those just happen to all be teams with top tier head coaches. So ultimately, I think coaching's share of this tends to get underrated. Like, we see free agents from good teams bust constantly when they go to bad teams, and that's like 90% the coaching difference. It wasn't a bad player or a bad signing, they just don't have proper support and utilization anymore. Some players I see leave KC, I know they're going to bust, because they were used certain ways, and they won't be on the new team. My least favorite free agent signings are when teams pay a role player to be a full-time top tier contract guy. So rarely works out. So I think it isn't surprising that a lot of the GMs that appear to be the best are paired with coaches that are up there as well. And there is some symbiosis to this at the highest levels. The best GMs acquire not just good players, but the right kind of good players to match what their coaches are doing. It feels like there's a weird divide with some teams when you see a DC that doesn't blitz get handed LBs that excel rushing the passer, or an offensive scheme that likes to throw to the middle of the field get tall WRs and a short QB. I feel like this is where Veach has excelled the most, is that he seems to find exactly the right guys for what Reid and Spags need. He might not be a better talent evaluator than Dorsey was, but I think he matches talent to the coaching staff much better. Anyway, this is a long winded way of me just saying I don't really know. I think it's really hard for us to discern the actual quality of the behind the scenes guys. So we go off of what we can see, and that ultimately just becomes wins = good. I think Veach is amazing. But the team has won 3 superbowls, so of course I think that. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August4th Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 26 minutes ago, Xmad said: How many winning seasons he got? also that claypool trade 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Eaglesfan Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 36 minutes ago, MonserinNC said: I may be biased but Im gonna say Ryan Poles....rolling over a #1 overall pick for another #1 overall pick was crazy lucky, but he still pulled it off. While also having a ton of cap space, AND putting himself in a position where he can pretty much do ANYTHING in the draft. I dont think Ive seen a GM make moves like this EVER. Poor Bears fans are so deluded they are making comments like these 🤣 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 45 minutes ago, MonserinNC said: I may be biased but Im gonna say Ryan Poles....rolling over a #1 overall pick for another #1 overall pick was crazy lucky, but he still pulled it off. While also having a ton of cap space, AND putting himself in a position where he can pretty much do ANYTHING in the draft. I dont think Ive seen a GM make moves like this EVER. Respectfully, this is all pretty meaningless until we see what he does with it. The original reason the Bears have so much for resources in cap space and draft capital is that the team was really bad when he started. That's neither unique to the Poles and the Bears nor something that we should really praise anyone for. Like, the other teams that have both a ton of cap space and a high amount of draft capital are like the Commanders, the Patriots, the Cardinals. The common denominator isn't high caliber GMing, it's bad football teams. It just doesn't matter until something good is done with those resources. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 So much is luck. With Mahomes on a cheap deal you are pretty much have a 20% margin on everyone else. The Ravens are very efficient. The Browns are clever. Howie is great has been aggressive with qbs but ends up with top 10 rather than top 5 guys. The Rams did well tk get a syperbowl with Stafford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 28 minutes ago, August4th said: also that claypool trade I like the idea, getting a potential WR for your QB to work with. Claypool just wasn't that dude. Worked out with D.J Moore though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Obviously Jerry Jones. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NudeTayne Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 15 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said: The Browns are clever. leshaun 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddHatter Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 As criteria goes, I would look at what they've accomplished since coming on board. What coaches did they hire, what talent did they bring in, and where have they taken the program? If they came into a situation like Detroit a few years back where it was an 0-16 program, and they clean house, rebuild the cap and 5 years later they're winning 10-12 games a season and competing in the playoffs, that might be more impressive to me than a guy who has a couple Super Bowl rings but has been in a kush job for the last decade plus and hasn't really had to do anything but let it ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilenFroggen Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Dan Morgan. I have no idea how he is as a GM, but he was my first favorite Panther. Technically speaking, that’s a qualifying answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 I find it hard to argue against the Ravens or the Chiefs or the Eagles. A lot of teams have had so much turnover at GM or not enough time to really know how good they are, but those 3 teams have consistently gone through turnover, made great deals, drafted well and maintained success. Gun to my head if I had to pick who the best of those 3 are, I probably say Howie Roseman. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr A W Niloc Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Howie Roseman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.