Should an owner be the GM?

[CCBoy]

There is a two-part answer

Answer: Yes if the owner had a mom-and-pop business.

Answer: No if the owner had a multi-billion dollar corporate enterprise. An overseer of such an elaborate financial operation should always hired experienced qualified professional equipped to independently accomplish goals set forth by the owner. Business 101.

The real answer to that, when Dallas was purchased by Jerry, there was such a gamble involving money, Jerry Jones had to hedge to protection of gambled money. That survival aspect then, was taken by both Dallas and Oakland.

That period had to be explored and wasn't a nice or easy period to survive in.

After the franchise became a multi billion dollar organization, it became an element closer to ego...not team maximizing

A GM dedicated completely to team product and not organizational glitter, is now needed as well as maintining competitive level.

Those periods of time will be based upon individual competitiveness as well as satisfaction period that cost huge sacrifices for high level function.

Jerry has huge NFL pride but is not competitive enough and top shelf enough to forge the team at this stage of his and family industry.

He just is unable to stay on the edge of the intense competition of today's NFL. A good GM would already know if coaching was looking good or actually good in all application of job.

It's application time and adding features with changed leadership and accountability levels/indicators.

 

[ben24]

There are a number of issues I have with Jerry as an owner but I honestly think that having him as a GM puts us at an advantage over most of the teams in the league. I'm not suggesting that he's some master of evaluating talent or negotiating contracts but the fact that his role as GM isn't under constant pressure puts us at a significant advantage over the average team in the league. I think that the stats are pretty clear that when the GM's job is more secure it means that their interests are more in line with long term interests of the franchise and they're less likely to totally destroy the team by making overly risky decisions (such as going all in and trading away multiple future 1st rounders for a certain player).

Fans generally pressure the owners/GM to go all in pretty much every year when 90% of the time that is a bad decision to make and results in the team being irrelevant for several years on end while they rebuild. I know some will argue that they'd rather spend years being irrelevant (like the Giants) if it means winning the title when we finally get it together and win it all. The reality, though, is that even when doing that you're super unlikely to win during the years you go all in. You're actually more likely to win a title by having a competitive team over a 10 year period (like we have had) than going all in on a particular year

 

[raven55]

NO look he's been in that position and now 30 years and counting what have fans got for buying into his bs

 

[IceStar-D7]

Short answer no. That's why you have GMs....

 

[MWH1967]

probably not......

 

[Cowboys5217]

Am I wrong?

Owner is responsible for selling Jerseys, etc.. GMs are responsible for filling in personnel needs. It's almost contradicting doing both. Thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, I think JJ has done plenty for the sport in general.

No. It's a conflict of interest that ruins the whole idea of meritocracy which pro sports MUST be founded upon.

Frankly, Jerry has proven this as starkly as is possible.

The NFL should create a new rule that prohibits it from happening.

 

[jsb357]

the evidence is clear..,

 

[foofighters]

I think we all know the answer.

However, just like in all things, the one person that should know it, doesn't...

 

[Hardline]

An owner can do any damn thing they want with their team.
Should they? Absolutely not.

 

[Sheepherder]

Am I wrong?

Owner is responsible for selling Jerseys, etc.. GMs are responsible for filling in personnel needs. It's almost contradicting doing both. Thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, I think JJ has done plenty for the sport in general.

Can't say I've seen it work anywhere else.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Will McClay is the GM...thats why they keep him year after year Jerry just has the formal title

McClay is a consultant. No matter how many times you guys try to anoint him the GM it won't make it true. Jerry is the GM.

 

[MikeT22]

Will McClay is the GM...thats why they keep him year after year Jerry just has the formal title

Nope. McClay doesn’t make the picks or FA signings or trades or coaching hires

 

[Shinaoi]

The cowboys job should be the most prized in all of football. Yet we can’t seem to get a real coaching staff. Jerry is the reason

 

[MikeT22]

The cowboys job should be the most prized in all of football. Yet we can’t seem to get a real coaching staff. Jerry is the reason

Jerry still has Jimmy syndrome.

 

[iceberg]

Am I wrong?

Owner is responsible for selling Jerseys, etc.. GMs are responsible for filling in personnel needs. It's almost contradicting doing both. Thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, I think JJ has done plenty for the sport in general.

buy the team you can do what you want.

 

[BlindFaith]

Am I wrong?

Owner is responsible for selling Jerseys, etc.. GMs are responsible for filling in personnel needs. It's almost contradicting doing both. Thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, I think JJ has done plenty for the sport in general.

How many other owners are also the GM?

That should answer your question.

 

[charron]

No. But also don't forget owners always have the final say on everything to do with their team.

 

[Bing]

Maybe the league should ban owners or familes of owners from being GMs, and all teams must hire an OUTSIDE GM. We need intervention here, otherwise...

JJ would love that. Another yes man that has to answer to him. JJ runs this team and he will run it until he dies and when he does die his son will take over and run the team most likely even worse then what JJ does today. That is our future and nothing is going to change it.