What happened to 'In Pete We Trust'?

[kearly]

There are things the FO knows that we don't that give them an advantage for decision making at times. In the movie Moneyball, the A's trade away their best player for nothing, because of internal strife within the front office. It all worked out for them, even if on the surface it seemed like a moronic trade. If we judged that move from the outside we would think they were imbeciles, but we wouldn't know the real reasons behind it.

This is also famously true with medicals, especially come draft time. And sometimes, a guy can be a locker room cancer and get dealt out of the blue, like Percy Harvin.

However, I don't think being privy to hidden information at times makes front offices immune to personal bias, investment bias, blind spots, or paralysis by analysis. Having the ability to reason and apply critical thinking is a skill in itself, wholly independent from the evaluation skills and people skills a GM must excel at. While I think PCJS are the best in the game at evaluation and people skills, there are certainly moments I question their reasoning skills.

As far as none of us being GMs. It's true that if we were all former NFL execs, it would lend us perspective and sympathy. If we disagreed with our GM and we had that perspective, we'd be a lot less likely to pop off and over-react, because we'd have been in their shoes and know what it is like. So it's fair to say that some of the criticism is over-the-top and in need of perspective.

That said, does the fact that we aren't NFL executives rule out our ability to validly criticize? In most cases, I would contend that it does not. Roger Ebert was a failed movie director, but is generally considered the greatest movie critic of all time.

I think people just get riled up when the mistakes seem so obvious and the justification seems inadequate. Most of the mistakes that PCJS have made in hindsight, ala Cary Williams, had a long line of critics the day the move happened. The thing with PCJS is, when they do make a mistake, it tends to be obvious from day one.

 

[McGruff]

The fact that they kept UDFAs does not mean that Pope's status vs a drafted pick was not an issue.

Were the UDFAs competing with a recent draft pick?

Let's look . . . Tanner McEvoy was retained while 2016 draft pick Kenny Lawler was cut, George Fant was retained while 2015 draft pick Terry Poole was cut, Justin Hamilton was (initially) retained while 2013 draft pick Jordan Hill was cut, DeAndre Elliott was retained while 2015 draft pick Tye Smith was cut . . . shoot even Pope survived the first round of cuts while 2016 draft pick Zac Brooks was cut)

If so, were those draft picks falling into the category before preseason where members of the FO either took a personal interest in the pick or actively pushed awareness of the pick post-pick? (anotherwords they were emotionally vested in the pick?)

All the players we have on the roster, whether via the draft, post draft, or free agency, are here because someone in the FO took an interest in them, and because the coaches were invested in them. Every cut is personally hard because every player is a person who has been involved with other people.

Just looking at the raw #s does not tell you that and having UDFAs on the roster does not either, we lost some guys that we took several years to evaluate which left some holes. Additionally we had some big losses we had to fill due to weaknesses and due to personnel losses.

It stands to reason if an UDFA was available to at least fill the gap, and they had a roster spot for him - they will bring him on.

Yeah, but they were picked out of a pool of literally hundreds of potential UDFA's because someone in the FO knew something about them and how they might fit and have a chance to impact the roster. You make it sound as if the front office brings anyone with a "will play football for food" sign when they have a positional need.

That has nothing to do with a system whereby multiple people are evaluated, all selected at different levels and then told to compete for an open slot. The issue is whether the one with the best results get selected or the one with the highest draft slot gets advantages.

I don't doubt there are advantages to being drafted, especially if you are drafted higher (like CJ Procise for instance), that may buy you a little more time. But this team has proven over and over again that they will cut bait earlier than just about any other team in the league. And I also that in addition to the 2 criteria you mention (results and draft slot) there are at least 2 other considerations . . . future potential and unique skill set. I suspect they kept Collins because they believe that with some coaching on broadening his base, he can become more of a bruising runner that they don't currently have on their roster.

It should also be pointed out that 'doing well in college' should be significantly underweighted to doing well vs pros. The best college team is not going to be better than a 3rd string team of almost any NFL team. And considering many colleges put as much of the Sisters of the Poor teams as they can muster on their schedule, you really only get 6-8 solid games by which to evaluate a player vs good competition. So the idea that guys picked in the 4th round or 3rd round should be automatically credited vs someone not picked is folly, half of what you do in college is inflated or isn't a good indicator of how you would do vs nfl talent.

I agree, and apparently so does Seattle, who has routinely "reached" for small school projects and players with lackluster production (Wagner and Michael come to mind immediately) because they see something in them that would transition well to the NFL game. They also regularly pass on productive big school prospects with starts and stats to take a lesser polished prospect with ridiculous athletic ability.

 

[McGruff]

There are things the FO knows that we don't that give them an advantage for decision making at times. In the movie Moneyball, the A's trade away their best player for nothing, because of internal strife within the front office. It all worked out for them, even if on the surface it seemed like a moronic trade. If we judged that move from the outside we would think they were imbeciles, but we wouldn't know the real reasons behind it.

This is also famously true with medicals, especially come draft time. And sometimes, a guy can be a locker room cancer and get dealt out of the blue, like Percy Harvin.

However, I don't think being privy to hidden information at times makes front offices immune to personal bias, investment bias, blind spots, or paralysis by analysis. Having the ability to reason and apply critical thinking is a skill in itself, wholly independent from the evaluation skills and people skills a GM must excel at. While I think PCJS are the best in the game at evaluation and people skills, there are certainly moments I question their reasoning skills.

As far as none of us being GMs. It's true that if we were all former NFL execs, it would lend us perspective and sympathy. If we disagreed with our GM and we had that perspective, we'd be a lot less likely to pop off and over-react, because we'd have been in their shoes and know what it is like. So it's fair to say that some of the criticism is over-the-top and in need of perspective.

That said, does the fact that we aren't NFL executives rule out our ability to validly criticize? In most cases, I would contend that it does not. Roger Ebert was a failed movie director, but is generally considered the greatest movie critic of all time.

I think people just get riled up when the mistakes seem so obvious and the justification seems inadequate. Most of the mistakes that PCJS have made in hindsight, ala Cary Williams, had a long line of critics the day the move happened. The thing with PCJS is, when they do make a mistake, it tends to be obvious from day one.

And to their credit, they also quickly move forward from those mistakes.

 

[Sports Hernia]

There are things the FO knows that we don't that give them an advantage for decision making at times. In the movie Moneyball, the A's trade away their best player for nothing, because of internal strife within the front office. It all worked out for them, even if on the surface it seemed like a moronic trade. If we judged that move from the outside we would think they were imbeciles, but we wouldn't know the real reasons behind it.

This is also famously true with medicals, especially come draft time. And sometimes, a guy can be a locker room cancer and get dealt out of the blue, like Percy Harvin.

However, I don't think being privy to hidden information at times makes front offices immune to personal bias, investment bias, blind spots, or paralysis by analysis. Having the ability to reason and apply critical thinking is a skill in itself, wholly independent from the evaluation skills and people skills a GM must excel at. While I think PCJS are the best in the game at evaluation and people skills, there are certainly moments I question their reasoning skills.

As far as none of us being GMs. It's true that if we were all former NFL execs, it would lend us perspective and sympathy. If we disagreed with our GM and we had that perspective, we'd be a lot less likely to pop off and over-react, because we'd have been in their shoes and know what it is like. So it's fair to say that some of the criticism is over-the-top and in need of perspective.

That said, does the fact that we aren't NFL executives rule out our ability to validly criticize? In most cases, I would contend that it does not. Roger Ebert was a failed movie director, but is generally considered the greatest movie critic of all time.

I think people just get riled up when the mistakes seem so obvious and the justification seems inadequate. Most of the mistakes that PCJS have made in hindsight, ala Cary Williams, had a long line of critics the day the move happened. The thing with PCJS is, when they do make a mistake, it tends to be obvious from day one.

Great post. I think your last line rings so true.

 

[Sports Hernia]

There are things the FO knows that we don't that give them an advantage for decision making at times. In the movie Moneyball, the A's trade away their best player for nothing, because of internal strife within the front office. It all worked out for them, even if on the surface it seemed like a moronic trade. If we judged that move from the outside we would think they were imbeciles, but we wouldn't know the real reasons behind it.

This is also famously true with medicals, especially come draft time. And sometimes, a guy can be a locker room cancer and get dealt out of the blue, like Percy Harvin.

However, I don't think being privy to hidden information at times makes front offices immune to personal bias, investment bias, blind spots, or paralysis by analysis. Having the ability to reason and apply critical thinking is a skill in itself, wholly independent from the evaluation skills and people skills a GM must excel at. While I think PCJS are the best in the game at evaluation and people skills, there are certainly moments I question their reasoning skills.

As far as none of us being GMs. It's true that if we were all former NFL execs, it would lend us perspective and sympathy. If we disagreed with our GM and we had that perspective, we'd be a lot less likely to pop off and over-react, because we'd have been in their shoes and know what it is like. So it's fair to say that some of the criticism is over-the-top and in need of perspective.

That said, does the fact that we aren't NFL executives rule out our ability to validly criticize? In most cases, I would contend that it does not. Roger Ebert was a failed movie director, but is generally considered the greatest movie critic of all time.

I think people just get riled up when the mistakes seem so obvious and the justification seems inadequate. Most of the mistakes that PCJS have made in hindsight, ala Cary Williams, had a long line of critics the day the move happened. The thing with PCJS is, when they do make a mistake, it tends to be obvious from day one.

And to their credit, they also quickly move forward from those mistakes.

In most cases yes. I can think of one glaring one currently, but that horse has been beaten many times over and don't want to derail the good discussion going on in this thread.

 

[chris98251]

With many years of watching football you can develop an eye for things, especially if you had played in a position or had the chance to play with or watch very good players. This isn't a mandate for a Nobel prize but there are tidbits you can see that illustrate what a player can and does that makes a difference.

When you see a player excel in a system or an environment, when you see the team shine a bit brighter when he's on the field, when you see a team rally around them, and you see effort and a something that clicks you know.

Pope like Rawls, like Baldwin, like Bennett all showed that something to me, where it may be true they had a investment in Prosise already and feel he may fill the spot Pope obviously can do it right now as a third down back but because of the acquired depth made the decision to release him does not diminish the eye test many of those used to state the ability of the player. The Jets obviously seen the same type of ability and he is now their 3rd back or third down back most likely.

I am always pessimistic about things. I believe with blind faith you are waiting for disappointment.

I don't say

In My Government I trust.

In my Corporate CEO and Executives I trust.

In God I trust.

I try to have faith in what they do, but will state my thoughts and opinions also about what they do or don't do.

So why would I say in Pete and John I trust.

I have faith that they are doing their best, but reserve the right to question what they do.

After all God made the Platypus also.........

 

[Ad Hawk]

After all God made the Platypus also.........

Not going to make this a religion discussion, just an observation: the platapus rocks! Trust and faith in someone isn't bad.
while we can discuss it, in the end we have not choice!

I think what is causing some consternation is the seeming overreaction against the PC/JS for what are not even front-line players.

-->Collins vs. Pope? Please, this isn't a deal-breaker, won't be a decision that affects a single game win/loss , nor will it have future ramifications in case of injury. If it did, we'd be sunk in more ways than RB issues since we've seen the passing game come on strong when needed.

-->Burley cut for Simon? While corner depth may be lacking, I'm not sure this is a one-to-one comparison anyway, edge vs. slot skills.

-->Long Snapper issues? I'm still waiting to see any long-term problems there, though history has make a lot of people gun-shy. I get that, but even in pre-season, the sky didn't actually fall.

I understand Kearly's points above. But one thing we don't have access too is what the coordinators are planning for this season. I have no way of telling exactly what O or D they're going to roll out, but I assume that the players they chose have the upside for that plan. We can only note what they've done in the past. I'm anxious to see what the 2016-2017 Hawks look like with this personnel grouping, not a grouping I'd put together from the small and vanilla sample size of pre-season games.

"Compete" is only valid within certain parameters; if Pope's only competition is Rawls, then he hasn't out-competed him. I'd agree with keeping Rawls for that role. This isn't blind faith; it's reasoned faith. All faith worth having--in my car, my wife, my team's coach, etc.--is based on evidence.