I have no problem going through the GM cycle with the attitude of “I think he’s a good coach when he has players. Whoever we hire has the authority to make an evaluation and a compelling recommendation one way or the other.”
Let me throw this out there. If Ross said that to me, AND I wanted to keep the WCO long term, I let MM stay. See what he can do with my groceries and fire him after the year.
Why? It gives me a year to build the roster into something more enticing for top hires. If MM fails, it adds a year to my tenure bc he wasn’t my hire - and I get another high pick. If he succeeds, I appear pragmatic.
It’s kind of a win win, unless the GM is coming as a package with someone like Gruden or McCarthy.
Let me throw this out there. If Ross said that to me, AND I wanted to keep the WCO long term, I let MM stay. See what he can do with my groceries and fire him after the year.
Why? It gives me a year to build the roster into something more enticing for top hires. If MM fails, it adds a year to my tenure bc he wasn’t my hire - and I get another high pick. If he succeeds, I appear pragmatic.
It’s kind of a win win, unless the GM is coming as a package with someone like Gruden or McCarthy.
