Lovie worked with this guy for a decade, allegedly would like someone else as GM, and you guys think it's a big deal or cause for concern? People just want to invent issues
+1
Could always call Dominik back..
The issue is that we might miss out on the best candidates out there because of Lovies "final say."
But are candidates who would chafe at Lovie having final say really be the best candidates? The last thing we want is to bring in a GM who'd cause a power struggle.
What about not a power struggle per say, but a check and balance type of arrangement. McKay was a yes guy for Dungy and to some extent Gruden, and look at where that got us in a few years when salary cap hell from those contracts had to be paid.I don't think having someone that can at least challenge Lovie's wishes is a bad thing.
I would rather we go after a guy who will be fine with the terms that come with the job. If final say is a big issue I dont want the guy.
Yes, of course, but that isn't the issue.The issue is that we might miss out on the best candidates out there because of Lovies "final say."If it is an issue like it's looking like it might, then we may have to settle on a guy. Not what I really want happening when it comes to our new GM.
Who's to say Ballard was the best candidate for what we needed? He hasnt been a GM before. And obviously him not having the last word is an issue. We need someone who understands where the final decision comes from.
I never said Ballard was "the best candidate."I simply said that we MIGHT miss out on the best candidates out there. I'm not judging who is or who isn't the best. I have no clue who is and who isn't. I'm just stating that we could miss out on the best (or potentially the best) because of Lovie's "final say."I'm worried that we may have end up settling. Clearly we were interested in Ballard and now he's apparently out because of final say. If true, then clearly we are missing out on a top guy we are interested in. That's not an issue?We'll see with Vital and if it's an issue with him. Apparently he's another guy with really good potential as a good GM. Again, we'll see.
I think what FRG and the original tweet are saying is the issue isn't whether Ballard wants the job w/o getting final say in Buc personnel matters; it's the KC organization's view that Ballard going to the Bucs would NOT be a promotion, therefore the KC owners/management may NOT want to let Ballard out of his existing KC contract. True?
Lovie worked with this guy for a decade, allegedly would like someone else as GM, and you guys think it's a big deal or cause for concern? People just want to invent issues
Who's inventing issues here?People are responding to a report that a candidate may be out because of Lovie's "final say." There's no "inventing" going on.What's the problem? lol
From I've seen written, Ballard is quite good on the personnel side. But, I haven't seen anything about his ability to manage the cap and negotiate contracts.
As Lovie allegedly has final say (he's been asked and I specifically remember him telling NFLN he couldn't divulge what was in his contract) in personnel matters, we would seem to be wanting primarily a Cap Guru more than a personnel evaluator. The latter would still be nice tho', someone for Lovie to at least bounce ideas around with that are of a football family nature...
If you don't believe the title of this thread is attempting to create an issue, then I guess I really don't have anymore to say. What's really funny to me is do our fans want the Glazers hiring a GM or Lovie Smith? I would tend to believe Lovie would have a better idea.
I think what FRG and the original tweet are saying is the issue isn't whether Ballard wants the job w/o getting final say in Buc personnel matters; it's the KC organization's view that Ballard going to the Bucs would NOT be a promotion, therefore the KC owners/management may NOT want to let Ballard out of his existing KC contract. True?
That could be...I mean we haven't seen anything about Ballard being interviewed (could be wrong)...I think Vital is the first candidate being reported to interview.
Perhaps this is best handled w/ two positions. One to work personnel w/ Lovie and the other for contracts and cap.
Perhaps this is best handled w/ two positions. One to work personnel w/ Lovie and the other for contracts and cap.
Good point.
Perhaps this is best handled w/ two positions. One to work personnel w/ Lovie and the other for contracts and cap.
Good point.
I'm less concerned about the "final say" issue and more concerned about putting too much demand on Lovie's time.
If Lovie wants Ballard they could easily rework the contracts to make Lovie happy and make so the Chiefs couldnt use that excuse
If Lovie wants Ballard they could easily rework the contracts to make Lovie happy and make so the Chiefs couldnt use that excuse
Not going to happen.
