Rouxble
Pro-Bowler
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,920
- Reaction score
- 13,767
- Age
- 40
Offline
I would agree the coach can’t have total control to the point they can burn the house down when their seat gets hot, but GM’s tend to allow it anyway since their seats might be just as warm when a team is struggling.I personally think there need to be a good partnership but also some checks and balances between the two positions. Saints fans blame Payton for the cap and the roster, but the traditional role has been for GMs to manage those things and the coaches to coach the rosters they are given. Now if Payton (or DA more recently) did demand certain things that were risky and put the teams ability to sign their own free agents or saddle the team with a player they no longer want, then the GM should be the voice of reason that prevents that in some cases.
That is why I'm not totally against getting them as a pair with a common vision but different responsibilities. What I don't like is the coach making the demands, the GM giving them what they want and washing their hands of the responsibility after the coach has been fired.
Ideally, the GM would do everything he can to support the coach within some guardrails set by the team president. A winning team may get more leeway for using future assets to not waste a championship window, but a losing/middling team may be more restricted in using future assets in order to allow for a foundation of success to be established before making an all-in move.