Originally posted by xcfan:i'm of the opinion that the head coach's scope of influence should be more broad, to include GM duties. taking a model from the military, the head coach should be closer to a General's status, someone with a broad landscape of football wisdom, who can make decisions without a personal, detailed analysis of every fact because his experience deems it unnecessary. he appoints technically competent people to carry out his vision, and doesn't bog down and waste time with minutia.
a head coach knows which type of players he wants, and would have people under him who understand his specific vision, and who grind the hours in their duties, bringing the results to the coach for evaluation. essentially, a situation where the gm is working under and answering to the head coach. that produces the best product on the field. the owner and his representatives have to take responsibility for hiring and firing this team general--but the general runs the show. winning determines whether the owner continues to maintain status quo.
taking the power of player selection out of the hands of the wisest person is a mistake. the head coach should be the wisest person who produces and directs the show. the head coach as the technically competent leader in all phases is what will produce the strongest, most unified vision, making game-day work without weakness.
the head coach/ GM conflict is a problem of unnatural application of rank. the gm should not be above or equal to the head coach. that's my opinion.
An interesting post worthy of its own thread. And I disagree with you.
I see the GM as the strategist, planning the direction of the team long term whilst the HC acts as a tactician. If they are on the sane page and able you get to be a perennial challenger. If not, see TDon and DE for further details.
I think the HC has quite enough on his plate as it is. Most of the HCs who picked up GM responsibilities as well seem to have bombed.