There are different types of "credit" you can give a person. "Credit" that is due to the responsibility of a person in the power structure he operates in vs. "credit" for making a good decision. You are only talking about the first type: yes Ireland deserves ALL credit (and blame) for everything he is responsible for in the organization. But that's not sufficient to help answer questions like: "how good was Ireland as a GM, relative to other GM's?". For such questions you have to take into account the "difficulty" of making a good decision, which is something you are completely ignoring. When you look at the differences in difficulty of selecting a Pro Bowler with the #1 pick vs. a 7th round pick, you have to admit they are vastly different even though we can't quantify how big the difference is. Same thing here. If it was clear to almost every NFL draft "expert" that Tannehill was the right pick in the situation we were in, you can't give Ireland much credit for being an above average GM with that pick. And keep in mind most discussions about Ireland involve comparing him (implicitly) to other GM's, not just looking at Ireland picks in a vacuum.
IMO Ireland was decent at scouting college talent but poor at dealing with people. I think many of his failures were the result of coaching that couldn't adapt to to the talent. Now part of that is understanding fit, but it's also mixed in with what the coaches were saying they'd do and what they actually did. I think that's part of the dealing with people issue he has. As for whether Tannehill would have been picked where he was by most other GMs, I think it's a debateable issue. I'd guess it'd be closer to 50/50.
I think Ireland is more the "see the trees for the forest" kind of guy. He can be a good scout because he doesn't have to think about how all the pieces fit. It just never looked to me like he had a clear idea of what kind of team he wanted to build. So to me, one reason the coaches couldn't adapt to the talent is because Ireland didn't give them pieces that were easy to fit together. And I think the evidence I provided with the mock drafts, scouting reports, etc.. shows well more than 50% of GM's would have picked Tannehill in our situation.
Being a successful talent evaluator is largely a matter of luck and chance IMO. Had Jeff Ireland landed a young QB much earlier in his tenure he likely would still be in his position. Guys revered as great GMs usually just managed to land one or two transformative talents early in their tenures. Ted Thompson landed Aaron Rodgers. Newsome landed Ray Lewis and Ed Reed. Those hits early in their career gave them the latitude to have some very bad drafts. In the end, the longer their careers last, the worse they look. Bill Polian is another great example of how GMs eventually regress to the mean. IMO Ireland would have greatly benefited from having a guy like Tannenbaum around. He had a guy like Parcells around, but I think he would have benefitted from Tannenbaums innovative nature. Ireland never had a huge problem working with others under Parcells, because Parcells was the guy that managed relationships. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I think there was a very clear idea of what Ireland wanted to build, but his idea didn't match the coach's and neither side was able to make things work. Synergy and alignment are usually more important than the individual's ability. I think if Miami had hired Mike McCoy instead of Philbin, then the team would be in the same position it is today, just different people. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Luck definitely plays a role, but: 1) I wouldn't include Newsome in that list.. he's been consistently good, and 2) you're only talking about successful in terms of keeping a job, not necessarily how good the picks/signings are. I have no doubt we're better off with Tannenbaum/Hickey than Parcells/Ireland or Ireland without Parcells.
I'll admit Ireland had a philosophy of what type of players to draft. In general, he preferred fast/nimble vs. the big/strong that Parcells preferred, and that showed once Parcells left. But that's a blueprint for individual players, not for how they fit together. He just seemed like he'd go after such players in general without regard for how one would fit all the pieces. Point is, I don't think the blame is all on the coaches for not getting players to mesh.
I think Ireland saw the forest but couldn't make that align with the coaches he had. You provided an argument, what it showed is a matter of opinion. I find that at least half of the GMs tend to be gun shy when it comes to very raw QB talent with middling numbers. It takes a guy who has a strong conviction to take the risk in those instances. Ireland had that conviction. I don't agree that many GMs would have had the same conviction or that the ones that didn't would have said, "I don't believe in the guy, but I need a QB so what the heck".
I think Ireland saw the forest but couldn't make that align with the coaches he had. You provided an argument, what it showed is a matter of opinion. I find that at least half of the GMs tend to be gun shy when it comes to very raw QB talent with middling numbers. It takes a guy who has a strong conviction to take the risk in those instances. Ireland had that conviction. I don't agree that many GMs would have had the same conviction or that the ones that didn't would have said, "I don't believe in the guy, but I need a QB so what the heck".
Even if it's 50/50 as you suggest, as long as there are more than two choices then 50% means Tannehill was the most likely pick by GM's in that situation.
I meant it being 50/50 between a QB or any other position in that situation. But if another QB grabbed that GM's conviction, say a Wilson or a Weedon then that might have been the QB.
Sure.. any individual GM might have different preferences, but I think we can argue most GM's would go for Tannehill over the other QB's in that situation because: 1) Philbin and Sherman's opinions will be heard and their preference is for Tannehill, and 2) the mock drafts and draft prospects list give us evidence of what many outside experts think is the proper pick. So if Tannehill is arguably the most likely QB picked, and there are clearly more than 3 other players/positions etc.. yeah, I think odds are very high that Tannehill was the most likely pick by a GM in the situation Ireland was in when he picked RT (personally, I think 2nd most likely player was Kuechly).
The thing about raw QBs is that if you need a QB bad enough to take a raw one high, then chances are your job is not particularly secure. Ireland had a reprieve because the coach was brand new so there was time to let the player develop.
