|
|
Post by CardCore on Oct 3, 2018 6:47:18 GMT -7
I loved getting that blast of fresh air Sunday when Josh cracked the window open. Even in a loss the stagnant air from the previous 3 weeks was swept from my nostrils. Yep! The window is beginning to open! But, due to various factors it will someday close.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon Michael to begin making some serious decisions. I don't see any reason to wait. He should hire a consultant either privately or publicly and start the process that will ultimately bring a SB championship to his father's team. |
|
|
|
Post by itancanwa on Oct 3, 2018 7:37:06 GMT -7
Do you really think a consultant is going to know which head coach and GM will be any good ? Unless they are proven it's a total crap shoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by One_Heartbeat on Oct 3, 2018 8:45:35 GMT -7
Do you really think a consultant is going to know which head coach and GM will be any good ? Unless they are proven it's a total crap shoot. Yeah we need a proven guy, like GRUDEN! Seriously, consultants are useless unless they have a very tight scope of work so if there's some glaring weakness in "the process" then maybe it makes sense. I don't know that Mike needs a consultant to write a report that says "stop paying aging WRs a huge premium to stay because they are fan favorites." Ultimately it's a business Mike's running and if giving fans what they want makes sense then that's what he should do. Or maybe he could hire a consultant to give him a strategy to instruct the fan base how they can't have it both ways and win Super Bowls while paying premiums to aging WRs. Now that's a tough one for any consultant, I can't even get people off of "poor Larry" takes for a guy who has spent 15 years voluntarily signing contract after contract for big, big money.
|
|
|
|
Post by CardCore on Oct 3, 2018 12:35:04 GMT -7
Do you really think a consultant is going to know which head coach and GM will be any good ? Unless they are proven it's a total crap shoot. I think a lot would depend on WHO the consultant was. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Oct 3, 2018 12:49:10 GMT -7
People make that wrong assertion about draft picks too. Its not a total crap shoot. Betting on horses (same as hiring GMs and drafting QBs) is not a total crap shoot. Theres odds. Likelyhood. Statistics. Probability. Did you know that a coin toss is not random? It factually has a higher percentage likelyhood of landing on heads because the way the coin is minted, the heads side is heavier. Point being its not random. Its not luck. There is no 100% sure thing ever, but you can help yourself by putting in the work. Due diligence. |
|
|
|
Post by CardCore on Oct 3, 2018 12:59:10 GMT -7
Do you really think a consultant is going to know which head coach and GM will be any good ? Unless they are proven it's a total crap shoot. Yeah we need a proven guy, like GRUDEN! Seriously, consultants are useless unless they have a very tight scope of work so if there's some glaring weakness in "the process" then maybe it makes sense. I don't know that Mike needs a consultant to write a report that says "stop paying aging WRs a huge premium to stay because they are fan favorites." Ultimately it's a business Mike's running and if giving fans what they want makes sense then that's what he should do. Or maybe he could hire a consultant to give him a strategy to instruct the fan base how they can't have it both ways and win Super Bowls while paying premiums to aging WRs. Now that's a tough one for any consultant, I can't even get people off of "poor Larry" takes for a guy who has spent 15 years voluntarily signing contract after contract for big, big money.
All I know is that "play to not lose" is the wrong kind of thinking. If I see that any more from Wilks I'll totally sour on him. Do you think it'd be best to give him and McCoy the entire season to try to get things turned around if they continue making lame decisions? I don't really want to endure that. |
|
|
|
Post by One_Heartbeat on Oct 3, 2018 13:43:46 GMT -7
Yeah we need a proven guy, like GRUDEN! Seriously, consultants are useless unless they have a very tight scope of work so if there's some glaring weakness in "the process" then maybe it makes sense. I don't know that Mike needs a consultant to write a report that says "stop paying aging WRs a huge premium to stay because they are fan favorites." Ultimately it's a business Mike's running and if giving fans what they want makes sense then that's what he should do. Or maybe he could hire a consultant to give him a strategy to instruct the fan base how they can't have it both ways and win Super Bowls while paying premiums to aging WRs. Now that's a tough one for any consultant, I can't even get people off of "poor Larry" takes for a guy who has spent 15 years voluntarily signing contract after contract for big, big money.
All I know is that "play to not lose" is the wrong kind of thinking. If I see that any more from Wilks I'll totally sour on him. Do you think it'd be best to give him and McCoy the entire season to try to get things turned around if they continue making lame decisions? I don't really want to endure that. I'm not going to defend Wilks but he absolutely has to be given this season at a minimum to show one way or the other. McCoy who knows, maybe Rosen suddenly starts making him look like a really awesome OC. For now I'm going to cling to my Joe Gibbs fantasy, where Gibbs started 0-5 and was the biggest idiot in D.C., finished 8-8 to become average, then won the Super Bowl the next year and became the best HC of all time.
Everybody whines about not getting a good enough coach here... fire Wilks after a handful of games and we'd be trolling the bottom of the barrel big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Oct 3, 2018 14:04:08 GMT -7
My take on this is to agree, but with emphasis on the corporate structure and staff. With improvements there, the team problems might be resolved over a relatively short time.
Consider: As responsibility ultimately lies with those in charge of making decisions, never changing the system of management and those involved cannot be expected to produce improved results - as is and has been the case with the Cardinals over time. Yes, when Graves and others departed there was some change for the better, but as the basic corporate system did not change as well very soon the same end results occurred. The point here is that responsibility and accountability remained about the same as when William Sr. ran the show, even though the attitude at the top changed.
I think a review of the corporate structure by a corporate troubleshooting disinterested party would reveal much that could be improved simply by revising, streamlining and organizing differently. That person or company must be qualified, have a background of success, and not an acquaintance or friend of the Bidwill family. Objectivity is paramount.
For instance:
Define the duties and responsibilities of each position holder, being sure that all needs are covered.
Define authority and scope of each position so that overlapping or omission cannot occur. If this means adding more positions and individuals, so be it, because results are the primary concern at a relatively small cost for better results. Similarly, if it means reducing staff then that should be done. I tend to think the former is more likely as some things have been glossed over or ignored in the past.
Do not promote anyone only because there is a need and it feels good to promote from within. Whoever fills a vacancy or need should first and foremost be the best available. No on the job learning makes sense if the best result is desired and needed. That guarantees mistakes being made for anyone put in such a situation. IMO, Steve K was put in a position for which he was not qualified, probably because he was befriended and became trusted in his former position in scouting - a background not conducive for a General Manager to be successful. Those two jobs are totally different. It is better to hire from outside when that is the best or only way to assure a qualified and capable person (for any position).
Identify areas of need that are not being covered, or not covered adequately. This may be one of the bigger items never done previously which offers the most for the least.
Stress to management that this is a business, and should be operated as such rather than as a family hobby which generates decent income. (That last is only for comparison, not a statement of fact, so please, no flaming screeds for the choice of words.)
Replace or move employees who have not shown they can handle existing or new responsibilities through experience or training.
There is more of course, but this is only a thin outline of what could/should be done to resolve most of the historic problems with the team overall. If it were, IMO it would go a long way toward fixing the problems on the field by virtue of not making mistakes in the first place which cause those team problems. It would not be a quick fix, but more a permanent repair of a shortcomings which have existed for many years... IMO, of course.
I think Mike B has the desire and ability to mold things differently, if he is shown the way. His background as an attorney is not a great help in operating the team, and may be one reason he has leaned on SK and others and has not insisted on doing things differently, so far. He is intelligent and will learn over time, but unfortunately during that time more mistakes and mis-steps will probably occur. He is still learning on the job. In short, there is hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 3, 2018 15:16:31 GMT -7
My take on this is to agree, but with emphasis on the corporate structure and staff. With improvements there, the team problems might be resolved over a relatively short time.
Consider: As responsibility ultimately lies with those in charge of making decisions, never changing the system of management and those involved cannot be expected to produce improved results - as is and has been the case with the Cardinals over time. Yes, when Graves and others departed there was some change for the better, but as the basic corporate system did not change as well very soon the same end results occurred. The point here is that responsibility and accountability remained about the same as when William Sr. ran the show, even though the attitude at the top changed.
I think a review of the corporate structure by a corporate troubleshooting disinterested party would reveal much that could be improved simply by revising, streamlining and organizing differently. That person or company must be qualified, have a background of success, and not an acquaintance or friend of the Bidwill family. Objectivity is paramount.
For instance:
Define the duties and responsibilities of each position holder, being sure that all needs are covered.
Define authority and scope of each position so that overlapping or omission cannot occur. If this means adding more positions and individuals, so be it, because results are the primary concern at a relatively small cost for better results. Similarly, if it means reducing staff then that should be done. I tend to think the former is more likely as some things have been glossed over or ignored in the past.
Do not promote anyone only because there is a need and it feels good to promote from within. Whoever fills a vacancy or need should first and foremost be the best available. No on the job learning makes sense if the best result is desired and needed. That guarantees mistakes being made for anyone put in such a situation. IMO, Steve K was put in a position for which he was not qualified, probably because he was befriended and became trusted in his former position in scouting - a background not conducive for a General Manager to be successful. Those two jobs are totally different. It is better to hire from outside when that is the best or only way to assure a qualified and capable person (for any position).
Identify areas of need that are not being covered, or not covered adequately. This may be one of the bigger items never done previously which offers the most for the least.
Stress to management that this is a business, and should be operated as such rather than as a family hobby which generates decent income. (That last is only for comparison, not a statement of fact, so please, no flaming screeds for the choice of words.)
Replace or move employees who have not shown they can handle existing or new responsibilities through experience or training.
There is more of course, but this is only a thin outline of what could/should be done to resolve most of the historic problems with the team overall. If it were, IMO it would go a long way toward fixing the problems on the field by virtue of not making mistakes in the first place which cause those team problems. It would not be a quick fix, but more a permanent repair of a shortcomings which have existed for many years... IMO, of course.
I think Mike B has the desire and ability to mold things differently, if he is shown the way. His background as an attorney is not a great help in operating the team, and may be one reason he has leaned on SK and others and has not insisted on doing things differently, so far. He is intelligent and will learn over time, but unfortunately during that time more mistakes and mis-steps will probably occur. He is still learning on the job. In short, there is hope.
I wonder, if the Cardinals somehow win a few games in October, November, and December, does the problem corporate structure concern abate? If the same dudes are in their seats next year, and the Cardinals somehow finish well above .500 and make the playoffs, are the corporate nerds now brilliant leaders and football visionaries? I find it hard to lay blame for 0-4 or even 0-16 on Mike Bidwill & Co just yet. If this team falls out the window to start the 2019 season, then you might be right about FO folks. Rotten to the core. |
|
TMoney
Rookie
KMoney
Posts: 34
|
Post by TMoney on Oct 3, 2018 17:44:49 GMT -7
The whole premise of this thread is likely flawed. What are the chances that there aren't several consultants brought in every year? The Cardinals are worth nearly a billion dollars... I'm quiet certain that they bring in tons of consultants from varied backgrounds.
As much as people talk crap about Micheal Bidwell, under his leadership the Cardinals franchise has been transformed from the laughing stock of the NFL to a team with actual fans, and positive coverage sometimes. I'd assume that he gets all the help he can. He's constantly upgrading the facilities, and if the coaches or GM make a suggestion he's receptive. Arians said he wanted to hire more coaches and he listened. He was told that they need better training facilities for summer camp, he listened. Someone decided that the Cardinals needed to improve their brand and magically a TV show called "All or Nothing" was created. This stuff ain't accidentally happening you guys. Bidwell clearly is actually trying to improve the franchise and therefore how would he not be using consultants?
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Oct 3, 2018 19:49:03 GMT -7
I wonder, if the Cardinals somehow win a few games in October, November, and December, does the problem corporate structure concern abate? If the same dudes are in their seats next year, and the Cardinals somehow finish well above .500 and make the playoffs, are the corporate nerds now brilliant leaders and football visionaries? I find it hard to lay blame for 0-4 or even 0-16 on Mike Bidwill & Co just yet. If this team falls out the window to start the 2019 season, then you might be right about FO folks. Rotten to the core.
Yes and yes. And Mike is still learning from the school of hard knocks. Most people have short memories, so Rosen and others could 'provide cover' once again to put off needed overhaul - which would be nice to see but not do much for the greater good in the future. This has happened in the past when we had a team that produced fairly well, so nothing changed then. A review in depth need not interrupt what happens on the field, especially when concentrated on the corporate end. Any big changes could be done off-season or could be incremental over time if field impact were anticipated.
I am not calling out Mike B, only attempting to show that he must be willing to look for and recognize failings in what he controls before any improvement can occur. If not, the problems would still exist because they are not recent, rather systemic over history. "Same old Cardinals", as it were: how things are done, who decides what and why, what the corporate philosophy is, was, or should be to achieve the best results. As one of the original teams, I suspect much of the original ways and organizational concept have carried on to this day, not adapting to stay even with trends and concepts, just handed down from father to sons who learned the ways of their father - which may have been adequate once but not now.
I think we have a some square pegs in round holes, and a structure that has omitted necessary parts or people to do necessary things which at least encourage being a winner, not just stay viable as one of 32 teams.
I am not saying "rot" exists. Rather misplaced, unqualified/incapable people in a disorganized or mis-organized structure that just continued over the years with no urgency to do better. Or maybe having no firm hand at the helm contributed as well (speaking in the past tense).
There is a lot of room for other opinions and thought on this topic. Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Oct 3, 2018 20:11:14 GMT -7
The whole premise of this thread is likely flawed. What are the chances that there aren't several consultants brought in every year? The Cardinals are worth nearly a billion dollars... I'm quiet certain that they bring in tons of consultants from varied backgrounds. As much as people talk crap about Micheal Bidwell, under his leadership the Cardinals franchise has been transformed from the laughing stock of the NFL to a team with actual fans, and positive coverage sometimes. I'd assume that he gets all the help he can. He's constantly upgrading the facilities, and if the coaches or GM make a suggestion he's receptive. Arians said he wanted to hire more coaches and he listened. He was told that they need better training facilities for summer camp, he listened. Someone decided that the Cardinals needed to improve their brand and magically a TV show called "All or Nothing" was created. This stuff ain't accidentally happening you guys. Bidwell clearly is actually trying to improve the franchise and therefore how would he not be using consultants? How would you or I or anyone on this board know? If there have been consultants involved in the recent past, it sure doesn't show. Nothing in the manner that things are done has changed that I can see, so if any consultants were involved with the team (players, coaches etc) they didn't do a good job. Yeah, a new coach and system - but that has happened before, and it was not because of a consultant. It was because BA left and nobody had prepared for it in advance like should have been done. Same with Palmer. And Warner, etc. etc.
I agree that Mike B is trying. I think he is doing the most obvious first, but there is more to be done higher up before great results happen and continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Oct 3, 2018 20:19:49 GMT -7
Do you really think a consultant is going to know which head coach and GM will be any good ? Unless they are proven it's a total crap shoot. I think a lot would depend on WHO the consultant was. And what he/they were paid to examine and recommend.
I say the consultant is needed for the Management part, not the team and coaches. Helping one helps the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 4, 2018 2:22:18 GMT -7
I wonder, if the Cardinals somehow win a few games in October, November, and December, does the problem corporate structure concern abate? If the same dudes are in their seats next year, and the Cardinals somehow finish well above .500 and make the playoffs, are the corporate nerds now brilliant leaders and football visionaries? I find it hard to lay blame for 0-4 or even 0-16 on Mike Bidwill & Co just yet. If this team falls out the window to start the 2019 season, then you might be right about FO folks. Rotten to the core.
Yes and yes. And Mike is still learning from the school of hard knocks. Most people have short memories, so Rosen and others could 'provide cover' once again to put off needed overhaul - which would be nice to see but not do much for the greater good in the future. This has happened in the past when we had a team that produced fairly well, so nothing changed then. A review in depth need not interrupt what happens on the field, especially when concentrated on the corporate end. Any big changes could be done off-season or could be incremental over time if field impact were anticipated.
I am not calling out Mike B, only attempting to show that he must be willing to look for and recognize failings in what he controls before any improvement can occur. If not, the problems would still exist because they are not recent, rather systemic over history. "Same old Cardinals", as it were: how things are done, who decides what and why, what the corporate philosophy is, was, or should be to achieve the best results. As one of the original teams, I suspect much of the original ways and organizational concept have carried on to this day, not adapting to stay even with trends and concepts, just handed down from father to sons who learned the ways of their father - which may have been adequate once but not now.
I think we have a some square pegs in round holes, and a structure that has omitted necessary parts or people to do necessary things which at least encourage being a winner, not just stay viable as one of 32 teams.
I am not saying "rot" exists. Rather misplaced, unqualified/incapable people in a disorganized or mis-organized structure that just continued over the years with no urgency to do better. Or maybe having no firm hand at the helm contributed as well (speaking in the past tense).
There is a lot of room for other opinions and thought on this topic. Thanks for the input.
One more thought about the Cardinals' management team: There is a corporate structure but no corporation per se. The Cardinals franchise is family owned business. When family is involved a business, no matter how big or small the business, there is usually an accommodation for the lesser talented family members. Family accommodations CAN subtract from an ideal corporate process -- to maximize the bottom line (aka accrue wins). |
|
|
|
Post by CardCore on Oct 4, 2018 7:19:20 GMT -7
The whole premise of this thread is likely flawed. What are the chances that there aren't several consultants brought in every year? The Cardinals are worth nearly a billion dollars... I'm quiet certain that they bring in tons of consultants from varied backgrounds. As much as people talk crap about Micheal Bidwell, under his leadership the Cardinals franchise has been transformed from the laughing stock of the NFL to a team with actual fans, and positive coverage sometimes. I'd assume that he gets all the help he can. He's constantly upgrading the facilities, and if the coaches or GM make a suggestion he's receptive. Arians said he wanted to hire more coaches and he listened. He was told that they need better training facilities for summer camp, he listened. Someone decided that the Cardinals needed to improve their brand and magically a TV show called "All or Nothing" was created. This stuff ain't accidentally happening you guys. Bidwell clearly is actually trying to improve the franchise and therefore how would he not be using consultants? I don't remember anybody ever talking crap about Mike Bidwill. Personally I think he's an awesome president for the team. I just wonder if he wouldn't benefit from spending some time with well known football people that know how to seek out and troubleshoot any possible problem areas within a football organization. There's always the possibility that I'm wrong also. |
|
